Skip to main content

Full text of "The North Carolina historical review"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 

'Zfiatonical 'Review 

Issued Quarterly 

Volume XLIV Numbers 1-4 



The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Miss Marie D. Moore, Editorial Associate 

John Fries Blair William S. Powell 

Miss Sarah M. Lemmon David Stick 

Henry S. Stroupe 


Josh L. Horne, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

T. Harry Gatton Hugh T. Lefler 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 192U, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $b.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may 
be obtained from Kraus Reprint Corporation, 16 East b6th^Street, New York, New 
York, 10017, or on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without 
special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department 
of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. Mailing address is Box 1881, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
27602. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina, 27602. 

7^e %wt6, (fatolut* 
*i¥i4to>Ucat 'Review 





J. C. Harrington 


Helen Burr Smith and Elizabeth V. Moore 


Harold D. Moser 



H. Larry Ingle 


Masterson, The John Gray Blount Papers, Volume III, 1796-1802, 

by W. Edwin Hemphill 89 

Manarin, North Carolina Troops, 1861-1865: A Roster, Volume I, 

Artillery, by James W. Patton 90 

Olsen, Carpetbagger's Crusade: The Life of Albion Winegar Tourgee, 

by Fletcher M. Green 91 

Oatewood, Preachers, Pedagogues & Politicians: The Evolution 

Controversy in North Carolina, by Joseph F. Steelman 92 

Linder, William Louis Poteat: Prophet of Progress, by Willard B. Gatewood 94 

Whedbee, Legends of the Outer Banks and Tar Heel Tidewater, 

by Richard Walser 96 

Brown, The Catawba Indians: The People of the River, by Fred W. Voget 97 

Conway, The Reconstruction of Georgia, by Joe M. Richardson 99 

Scarborough, The Overseer: Plantation Management in the Old South, 

by Blanche Henry Clark Weaver . 100 

Swint, Dear Ones at Home: Letters from Contraband Camps, 

by Richard L. Zuber 101 

Posey, Frontier Mission: A History of Religion West of the Southern 

Appalachians to 1861, by W. Harrison Daniel 102 

Gillette, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the Fifteenth 

Amendment, by John Hope Franklin 103 

Link, Davidson, and Hurst, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume I, 

1856-1880, by Robert F. Durden 105 

Other Recent Publications 106 



Charles L. Paul 

papers from the sixty-sixth annual 
session of the north carolina literary 

December 2, 1966 


Ralph Hardee Rives 


Kenneth G. Hamilton 

NONFICTION, 1965-1966 154 

Herbert R. Paschal 


Sir Patrick Dean 


Richard L. Watson, Jr. 


Paul H. Bergeron 


William S. Powell 


Cumming, North Carolina in Maps, by Louis De Vorsey, Jr. 214 

Morrison, Josephus Daniels: The Small-d Democrat, by I. B. Holley, Jr. 215 

SlRMANS, Colonial South Carolina: A Political History, 1663-1763, 

by Daniel M. McFarland 216 

Johnson, The Nat Turner Slave Insurrection (Together with Thomas R. 
Gray's The Confession, Trial and Execution of Nat Turner as a 
Supplement, by James W. Patton 217 

Jones, Henry Newman's Salzburger Letterbooks, by Spencer King 218 

King, Georgia Voices: A Documentary History to 1872, by Phinizy Spalding 219 

De Vorsey, The Indian Boundary in the Southern Colonies, 1763-1775, 

by William P. Cumming 220 

Eaton, A History of the Old South, by Herbert J. Doherty, Jr. 222 

Sellers, James K. Polk, Continentalist, 1843-184-6, by Charlton W. Tebeau 223 

Galambos, Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence of a National 

Trade Association, by Robert W. Work ... 224 

Other Recent Publications 225 



W. Harrison Daniel 



David L. Smiley 


NORTH CAROLINA'S CRISIS, 1929-1932 ____270 

Joseph L. Morrison 



G. Melvin Herndon 


Jones, For History's Sake: The Preservation and Publication of 

North Carolina History, 1663-1903, by Hugh T. Lefler 298 

Roberts and Griffin, Old Salem in Pictures, by Mary Claire Engstrom 299 

Blythe, 38th Evac: The Story of the Men and Women Who Served in 
World War II with the 38th Evacuation Hospital in North Africa 
and Italy, by Sarah McCulloh Lemmon 300 

Edmunds, Tar Heels Track the Century, by Blackwell P. Robinson 301 

Rouse, North Carolina Picadillo, by Charles R. Holloman 302 

Manarin, Richmond at War: The Minutes of the City Council, 1861-1865, 

by Haskell Monroe 303 

Thompson, Robert Toombs of Georgia, by Horace H. Cunningham 305 

Rosenberger, Records of the Columbia Historical Society of 

Washington, D. C, by Mattie Russell 306 

Brandfon, Cotton Kingdom of the New South: A History of the Yazoo 
Mississippi Delta from Reconstruction to the Twentieth Century, 
by John Edmond Gonzales 307 

Clark, The South Since Appomattox: A Century of Regional Change, 

by Vincent P. De Santis 309 

Hindle, Technology in Early America: Needs and Opportunities for 

Study, by James F. Doster 310 

Clark, Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume 2, by A. M. Patterson 311 

Herrick, The American Naval Revolution, by Thornton W. Mitchell 312 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the 
President, 1965, by Robert Moats Miller 313 

Other Recent Publications 314 



Robert B. Murray 



James R. Morrill 


Stanley A. South 


Durward T. Stokes 



Hugh G. Earnhart 


Lonsdale and Others, Atlas of North Carolina, by Christopher Crittenden 400 

Mitchell, Messages, Addresses, and Public Papers of Terry Sanford, 

Governor of North Carolina, 1961-1965, by Oliver H. Orr, Jr 401 

Evans, Ballots and Fence Rails: Reconstruction on the Lower Cape 

Fear, by Herbert O'Keef 402 

Malvin, North Into Freedom: The Autobiography of John Malvin, Free 

Negro, 1775-1880; and 
Walser, The Black Poet, being the remarkable story (partly told my [sic] 

himself) of George Moses Horton, a North Carolina slave, 

by Thomas D. Clark 403 

Bowles, A Good Beginning: The First Four Decades of the University of 

North Carolina at Greensboro, by Mary Lynch Johnson 405 

Walsh, The Writings of Christopher Gadsden, 1746-1S05, by J. Edwin Hendricks . 407 

Sherman, Robert Johnson: Proprietary & Royal Governor of South Carolina, 

by James K. Huhta 408 

Middleton, Henrietta Johnston of Charles Town, South Carolina: America's 

First Pastellist, by Ben F. Williams 409 

Samford and Hemphill, Bookbinding in Colonial Virginia, by William S. Powell . .410 

Isaac, Jefferson at Monticello: Memoirs of a Monticello Slave; and 
PlERSON, Jefferson at Monticello: The Private Life of Thomas Jefferson, 

by Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. 411 

Boney, John Letcher of Virginia: The Story of Virginia's Civil War 

Governor, by Richard D. Younger 412 

White, Messages of the Governors of Tennessee, Volume II, 1883-1899, 

by James W. Patton 413 

Coulter, The Toombs Oak, The Tree That Owned Itself, and Other Chapters 

of Georgia, by Sarah MeCulloh Lemmon 415 

Bertelson, The Lazy South, by Edwin A. Miles . 416 

Crowe, The Age of Civil War and Reconstruction, 1830-1900: A Book of 

Interpretative Essays, by Richard N. Current 418 

Spain, At Ease in Zion, by Roger H. Crook 419 

Wynes, Forgotten Voices: Dissenting Southerners in an Age of Conformity, 

by Allen J. Going 420 

Anderson, With the Bark On: Popular Humor of the Old South, 

by David L. Smiley 421 

Dillon, Benjamin Lundy and the Struggle for Negro Freedom, 

by Philip Davidson 422 

Ludlum, Early American Winters, 1604-1820, by Beth Crabtree 423 

Steinberg, The First Ten: The Founding Presidents and Their 

Administrations, by Gilbert L. Lycan 424 

Langley, Social Reform in the United States Navy, 1789-1862, 

by Alvin A. Fahrner 425 

Shannon, The Centennial Years: A Political and Economic History of 

America from the Late 1870's to the Early 1890's, by James A. Tinsley 426 

Link, Davidson, and Hurst, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume II, 

1881-1884, by Robert F. Durden 427 

Kirkendall, Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt, 

by Stuart Noblin 429 

Pine, The Story of Surnames and The Story of Heraldry, by C. F. W. Coker .430 

Other Recent Publications 432 



North Carolina State Library 

*i¥i4twUc4l Review 


TVtttt&i 1967 

The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Miss Marie D. Moore, Editorial Associate 

advisory editorial board 

John Fries Blair William S. Powell 

Miss Sarah M. Lemmon David Stick 

Henry S. Stroupe 


Josh L. Horne, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

T. Harry Gatton Hugh T. Lefler 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 1924, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may 
be obtained from Kraus Reprint Corporation, 16 East 46th Street, New York, New 
York, 10017, or on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without 
special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department 
of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. Mailing address is Box 1881, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
27602. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina, 27602. 

COVER — Mary Mare Bissell, daughter of John Mare, was born in 
Edenton in February, 1785, and died there in November, 1836. She and 
her husband, Captain Nathaniel C. Bissell, are buried in St. Paul's 
churchyard. Photograph reproduced by courtesy of Colonel John F. 
Williams, Jr. For an article on John Mare and his family, see pages 18 
to 52. 

North Carolina S^ate Library 

7^e %vtt& &vwU*ta 
'Zi&tonical Review 

Volume XLIV Published in January, 1967 Number 1 




J. C. Harrington 


Helen Burr Smith and Elizabeth V. Moore 


Harold D. Moser 


H. Larry Ingle 



Masterson, The John Gray Blount Papers, Volume III, 1796-1802, 

by W. Edwin Hemphill 89 

Manarin, North Carolina Troops, 1861-1865: A Roster, Volume I, 

Artillery, by James W. Patton 90 

Olsen, Carpetbagger's Crusade: The Life of Albion Winegar 

Tourgee, by Fletcher M. Green 91 

Gatewood, Preachers, Pedagogues & Politicians: The Evolution 

Controversy in North Carolina, by Joseph F. Steelman 92 

LlNDER, William Louis Poteat: Prophet of Progress, 

by Willard B. Gatewood ' 94 

Whedbee, Legends of the Outer Banks and Tar Heel Tidewater, 

by Richard Walser 96 

BROWN, The Catawba Indians: The People of the River, 

by Fred W. Voget 97 

Conway, The Reconstruction of Georgia, by Joe M. Richardson 99 

Scarborough, The Overseer: Plantation Management in the Old 

South, by Blanche Henry Clark Weaver 100 

SwiNT, Dear Ones at Home: Letters from Contraband Camps, 

by Richard L. Zuber 101 

POSEY, Frontier Mission: A History of Religion West of the 

Southern Appalachians to 1861, by W. Harrison Daniel 102 

Gillette, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the 

Fifteenth Amendment, by John Hope Franklin 103 

Link, Davidson, and Hurst, The Papers of Woodroiv Wilson, 

Volume I, 1856-1880, by Robert F. Durden 105 

Other Recent Publications 106 





By J. C. Harrington* 

Archaeological excavations in 1965 at Fort Raleigh National His- 
toric Site on Roanoke Island contributed important information rela- 
tive to the two questions: ( 1 ) Were brick and tile used by the Raleigh 
colonists? (2) If so, were they brought from England or made 

The Archivo General de Indias in Seville contains a deposition 
made under oath to the Spanish governor at Saint Augustine in 
1600 by one "David Glavin, Irish soldier." 1 This was, in all prob- 
ability, the Darby Glande listed as one of the members of the 1585 
voyage, as was also the Darbie Glaven mentioned in John White's 
narrative of the 1587 voyage. 2 Glande's testimony dealt with his par- 
ticipation in the two colonizing ventures and provides information 
about the 1585 settlement not recorded elsewhere. One of the most 
intriguing of his claims has been translated as follows: "There, as 
soon as they had disembarked, they began to make brick and tiles 
for a fort and houses." 3 

Not all of Glande's deposition can be accepted at face value, 4 but 
there seems to be no sound basis for questioning the alleged alacrity 
of the settlers in starting to make bricks and tiles. Even so, historians 
have been cautious about accepting this single bit of evidence, ex- 
plicit and reliable as it appears to be. In referring to the above 
assertion by Glande, the historian David Quinn states: "This would 

* Mr. Harrington, formerly resource studies advisor, National Park Service, United 
States Department of the Interior, is now retired and living at Richmond, Virginia. 
This paper was read in Raleigh on December 2, 1965, at the luncheon meeting of the 
North Carolina Society for the Preservation of Antiquities. 

1 David Beers Quinn (ed.), The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590: Documents to Illus- 
trate the English Voyages to North America Under the Patent Granted to Walter 
Raleigh in 1584 (London: Hakluyt Society [Second Series, No. CIV], 2 volumes, 
1955), II, 834-838, hereinafter cited as Quinn, Roanoke Voyages. The deposition is 
signed "David Glavid." 

3 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, II, 519. 

3 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, II, 835. 

4 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, II, 519, 835. 

2 The North Carolina Historical Review 

suggest that at least some of the buildings of Roanoke Island had 
brick bases. ..." 5 In another place he writes: "... it is probable that 
brick was made during the 1585-6 settlement, but the evidence is 
not conclusive. . . ." 6 Dr. Charles W. Porter III is a little more posi- 
tive, writing that "The chimney and foundations [of the settlers' 
houses] were presumably of brick because the Irishman Darby 
Glande, later testified. . . ." 7 

Only one reference, other than Glande's deposition, gives any 
hint of how the colonists built their houses, and that tells only that 
the roofs of at least some of the buildings were thatched. 8 Lacking 
more specific information, building practices of the period are the 
best, and only, source. Even this source must be considered in refer- 
ence to several factors, such as the customary building practices of 
the colonists, size and intended permanency of the new structures, 
and available building materials. Thomas Hariot's Brief e and true 
report of the new found land of Virginia, although written primarily 
to recruit settlers, told of "divers sortes of trees," including oak, wal- 
nut, and "firre" [pine], suitable for "house and shiptimber." 9 Even 
with an abundance of good timber, however, the colonists would have 
felt quite strongly the need for brick or stone for footings and fire- 
places. Chimneys could be built of wattle-and-daub, but it would 
have been a difficult adjustment for an English builder of Raleigh's 
day to have laid wooden members directly on the ground. 

Hariot noted the absence of suitable building stone in the vicinity 
of Roanoke Island, but until a source could be located he seemed 
confident that brick made from local clays was a feasible and accept- 
able substitute. 10 The local clay appeared to be satisfactory for 
brickmaking, and there was no shortage of fuel to fire the kilns. 
The time required to make bricks would have been the main problem, 
since brickmaking could not be hurried without sacrifice to the 
quality of the product. If work had started on arrival of the colonists 
in August, as Glande stated, summer weather would have speeded 
up the operation, and it is conceivable that the first kiln could have 
been fired within a month. Normally, however, six months to a year 
would have been required. 

5 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, II, 835. 
8 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, I, 367. 

7 Charles W. Porter III, "Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina: 
Part of the Settlement Sites of Sir Walter Raleigh's Colonies of 1585-1586 and 1587," 
North Carolina Historical Review, XX (January, 1943), 29. 

8 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, I, 282. 
G Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, I, 363. 
10 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, I, 363. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 3 

Hariot also commented on the abundance of shells for making 
lime, referring to the use of shell lime in the ". . . lies of Tenet and 
Shepy [in Kent], and also in divers other places in England: Which 
kinde of lime is well knowne to bee as good as any other." n 

The colonists apparently set to work at once erecting permanent 
houses, most of which were probably one-room cottages with sleep- 
ing space in the loft. Of concern here is the type of construction as a 
clue to the extent to which bricks might have been used. Having 
familiar building materials at hand, one can assume that traditional 
construction methods were followed. A review of building practices 
in rural Elizabethan England, therefore, should provide the best 
guide for the basic methods used in the Raleigh colony. Reference as 
to how the houses were built in other early colonies, particularly at 
Jamestown, should also be helpful. 

Post-and-truss construction was the common method of building 
small houses and cottages in England at the time of the Raleigh 
settlement. C. F. Innocent in his book The Development of English 
Building Construction states that "this kind of construction reached 
its height in the sixteenth century. The buildings then erected are of 
this kind wherever the necessary timber was obtainable. . . ." 12 It 
consisted of a rigid skeleton of timbers supporting a roof truss. The 
roofing material was commonly thatch, although tile and stone-slates 
were used in some sections. Usually the spaces between the wooden 
wall members were filled with interwoven withes or laths and plastered 
with clay mixed with straw, a method called "wattle-and-daub." 
Post-and-truss frames with wall spaces filled with wattle-and-daub 
is commonly referred to as "half-timbered" construction. 13 The first 
step in constructing a building of this type, and the one relating 
directly to the present discussion, was to build a low, continuous 
foundation of brick or stone. On this base was placed a heavy timber 
sill, into which upright posts were inserted at intervals. 

Although the post-and-truss technique for framed structures was 
customary in England in 1585, the "cruck" method had not died out 
and must have been known to the Raleigh colonists. 14 In fact, it 

11 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, I, 367-368. 

12 C. F. Innocent, The Development of English Building Construction (Cambridge, 
England: Cambridge University Press, 1916), 75, hereinafter cited as Innocent, 
English Building Construction. 

13 For detailed description of this method of construction, see Innocent, English 
Building Construction, 125-126, and Harry Batsford and Charles Fry, The English 
Cottage (London: B. T. Batsford, Ltd. [Third Edition, Revised], 1950), 24-38, herein- 
after cited as Batsford and Fry, The English Cottage. 

14 Batsford and Fry, The English Cottage, 25. 

4 The North Carolina Historical Review 

appears to have been used at Jamestown more than twenty years 
later. 15 It refers to the method in which the basic framework was 
composed of curved or bent tree trunks, joined at the top and sup- 
porting a heavy ridge pole. This framing, which resembled a Gothic 
arch, carried the rafters and bracing, to which were attached the 
thatched roof and wattle-and-daub walls. But even if the Raleigh 
colonists had been inclined to use this outmoded method of con- 
struction, they would still have needed brick or stone for footings. 
By Tudor times, it was the practice to rest the slanting posts on low 
masonry walls, although in earlier times rough stone plinths were 
used. 16 

Other varieties of construction of that general period included 
various forms of palisaded walls (tree trunks or timbers placed up- 
right in a trench) 17 and a method sometimes used in the seventeenth 
century at Jamestown in which the wooden sills of a timber-framed 
building were supported on a series of posts sunk into the ground. 18 
This latter technique was practical when the first floor was elevated 
above the ground and ventilation desired below the floor. In addition 
to wall construction making use of wooden members, English cot- 
tages of that time also were built of stone, brick, and mud without 
supporting framework. The latter, still in use in parts of England, 
had various names, the most common being "cob." These methods 
were not likely to have been employed at Roanoke Island, and there- 
fore are not relevant to the present discussion. 

The typical English framed cottage of Elizabeth's day had only 
the bare ground for a floor, or more rarely a brick paving. One can 
assume that the former was the case at the Roanoke settlement, parti- 
cularly in view of White's account of finding melons growing in the 
fort and houses when he returned in 1587. 19 

It is more difficult to say what the attitude would have been con- 
cerning the construction of fireplaces. The earlier rural cottages in 
England often had no fireplace or chimney, the fire being built di- 
rectly on the dirt floor and the smoke seeping out through a special 
vent or elsewhere as best it could. The typical framed, wattle-and- 
daub, thatched cottage of Tudor England, however, had a large 

15 Henry Chandlee Forman, Jamestown and St. Mary's — Buried Cities of Romance 
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1938), 30-34, hereinafter cited as Forman, James- 
town and St. Mary's. 

16 Batsford and Fry, The English Cottage, 19. 

17 Forman, Jamestown and St. Mary's, 30-31. 

18 John L. Cotter, Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia (Washington: 
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Archeological Research 
Series Number Four, 1958), 60-61, 84, 129-131. 

19 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, II, 524. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 5 

fireplace, usually lined with brick or stone, with a huge wooden 
lintel. The chimney, too, would normally have been of brick or stone. 
An Englishman of that day, however, not having stone or brick at 
hand, would have been perfectly capable of building the fireplace 
and chimney of the same wattle-and-daub construction used for fill- 
ing the spaces between the wall framing of his house. Or, if bricks 
were scarce, he would probably have used them for the fireplace 
and resorted to sticks and mud for the chimney. 

Prior to recent archaeological discoveries, the possibility of the 
cottages having had tile roofs would have seemed almost too absurd 
to warrant discussion, even in the light of Glande's testimony. In 
spite of the fire hazard of thatched roofs and laws requiring the sub- 
stitution of tile or slate, thatch persisted as the most common roof 
covering in England for many years after the Roanoke voyages, 
particularly on smaller nonurban houses. Nearly a century later 
at Jamestown, thatched roofs were common, and laws calling for 
the use of tile or slate were still being ignored. One problem was the 
difficulty in making satisfactory tiles. As late as 1649 it was claimed 
that the local brickmakers did not know how to make tiles. 20 One 
would have to assume, therefore, that practical considerations, as 
well as building precedent and experience, would have dictated the 
use of thatch by the Raleigh colonists. 

Of interest, too, is the fact that Hariot, in discussing building 
needs and resources in the new land, referred to stone, bricks, and 
lime, but made no mention of tiles. Then there is the inference of 
thatch on even the better houses in Lane's account of the Indian 
plot, in which he wrote that the Indians planned to "beset my house, 
and put fire in the reedes, that the same was covered with. . . ." 21 
This documentary evidence supports the common-sense conclusion 
that Glande could have been correct in respect to brickmaking, but 
certainly not on the matter of making tiles. 

The foregoing information was known in 1947 when the National 
Park Service began archaeological explorations at Fort Raleigh Na- 
tional Historic Site. The possibility of bricks and tiles having been 
made and used by the colonists was not taken too seriously, and the 
prospect of finding a brick foundation, or even the remnants of a 

20 J. C. Harrington, "Seventeenth Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at James- 
town, Virginia," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXIII (January, 1950), 
18, hereinafter cited as Harrington, "Brickmaking at Jamestown." 

21 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, I, 282. 

6 The North Carolina Historical Review 

fireplace, was considered unlikely. 22 Archaeologists have a tendency 
to mistrust such uncorroborated evidence as Darby Glande's testi- 
mony. Nevertheless, a sharp watch was kept for fragments of brick 
or tile. Even if none of the test trenches crossed directly over a house 
site, it was considered likely that bricks from such a site would more 
likely be scattered and more readily found than other building refuse, 
such as mortar, nails, charcoal, and ashes. 

During the earlier explorations in the Fort Raleigh area beginning 
in 1947, only six fragments of old bricks were found. By "old" is 
meant handmade, sand-struck bricks, rather than the later wire-cut 
type. Five of the six fragments are from conventional bricks; the 
sixth is from a thin "Dutch" brick and not of concern to the present 
study. Even with whole bricks it is impossible to determine more 
than the general period of their manufacture, while small fragments 
tell very little. One of the pieces from the earlier excavations is 2% 
inches thick, which conforms to brick of the Tudor period, and thus 
does not eliminate the possibility of its association with the settle- 
ment. 23 It was found at the same level and near one of the Indian 
campfires uncovered in the partially filled fort ditch. Another similar 
fragment was found in the fort ditch at a depth of 3 feet, but is too 
badly eroded to provide even an approximate measurement. It must 
have been picked up along the nearby shore, as it is quite clearly 
water worn. The other three fragments look old, but were found 
near the surface, which precludes any conclusion as to when they 
were deposited. 

Only one fragment of roofing tile was found in all the archaeologi- 
cal excavating at Fort Raleigh prior to 1965. It came from the very 
bottom of the fort ditch and must have been dropped there soon after 
the fort was abandoned. 24 On the basis of this single fragment, its 
location notwithstanding, tilemaking by the colonists, or even the 
importation of tiles from England, could not be considered proven. 
Just as with the five brick fragments, it was highly suggestive, but 
needed corroboration, even when viewed in conjunction with Glande's 

The earlier explorations failed to locate the settlement site, and 
no further testing was undertaken until major construction was started 

22 Jean Carl Harrington, Search for the Cittie of Ralegh, Archeological Excavations 
at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina (Washington: National Park 
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Archeological Research Series Number Six, 
1962), 34, hereinafter cited as Harrington, Cittie of Ralegh. 

23 Harrington, Cittie of Ralegh, 23. 

24 Harrington, Cittie of Ralegh, 23. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 7 

in 1963. At that time, certain areas were checked by trenching with 
power equipment, both prior to and during construction of roads, 
parking areas, and buildings. Much of the area in the general vicinity 
of the fort was tested, but no additional archaeological work was 
carried out in the more likely section just west of the fort. Sand dunes 
and heavy vegetative cover make this location difficult to explore. In 
fact, even narrow trenches, if carried to the necessary depth, would 
injure the trees and seriously alter the terrain of this attractive part of 
the site. It has been accepted that the best chance of finding signifi- 
cant remains in this critical area would be by pure accident— possi- 
bly under a blown-down tree, in the eroding bank along the shore, 01 
in a trench being dug for utility lines. The last is exactly what hap- 

In 1959 a trench was being dug to carry power and water lines 
across the road to the restored fort. A foot below the pavement and 
about 35 feet from the outer edge of the fort ditch, the workmen 
encountered what they thought to be a brick floor. Work was stopped, 
the utility trench relocated, and the feature covered and marked for 
future investigation. Opportunity to check this discovery did not 
come until the spring of 1965. Excavation of the "brick floor" turned 
out to be much more of an undertaking than anticipated. A detailed 
archaeological report on the excavation of these remains has just 
been published. 25 The present article, therefore, will deal primarily 
with the implication of the discovery of bricks and tiles found in asso- 
ciation with a sixteenth-century feature on Roanoke Island. 

The feature referred to above has not been identified with cer- 
tainty, but would appear to have had some military function, and 
may be related to the nearby earthen fort restored in 1950. A portion 
of it forms a nine-foot square, sunk one and a half feet below the 
original ground line. The "brick floor," accidentally uncovered in 
1959, turned out to be a circular fire pit about two feet in diameter. 
Two other similar fire areas were found immediately adjacent to the 
first one, and all within the sunken square. They contained quantities 
of charcoal and ashes, but more interestingly, a number of bricks 
and brickbats. There were also a great many Indian pottery sherds, 
the neck of a ceramic bottle of European origin, and a few fragments 
of roofing tiles. This miscellaneous material was imbedded in clay, 
which had been hardened from the heat of the fires. It was not as 

25 Jean Carl Harrington, An Outwork at Fort Raleigh: Further Archeological Ex- 
cavations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina (Richmond: Eastern 
National Park and Monument Association, 1966). 

The North Carolina Historical Review 


Figure 1. Examples of abraded bricks and two of the whole bricks. What appears to 
be remnants of mortar on some of the bricks is the clay in which they were embedded 
in the fire pits. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 9 

hard as the bricks, but sufficiently similar to explain the initial identifi- 
cation of the 1959 discovery as a brick floor. Laboratory tests showed 
this cementing material to be identical, physically and chemically, to 
the natural clayey sand lying below the humus zone in this locality.? 6 

One interpretation of these finds is that Indians used the structure 
after the colonists had left, just as they had the fort where they had 
built campfires in the partially filled fort ditch. No bricks were found 
in these hearths at the fort, but an earlier Indian campfire under the 
fort parapet contained fire-fractured stones, presumably used for sup- 
porting the typical pointed pottery vessels. 27 

Indian origin of the firepits excavated in 1965 is also suggested by 
the large number of Indian pottery fragments found in and near the 
features. Several separate vessels are represented, many fragments 
having been imbedded in the cementing clay, along with bricks and 
brickbats. The concentration of Indian pottery in these small hearths, 
compared with its infrequent occurrence in other excavations nearby, 
points to rather extensive use of the abandoned structure by Indians. 
Another point in favor of the Indian theory is the complete absence 
of European objects in the charcoal and ashes outside the firepits, 
whereas broken Indian pottery was found scattered throughout the 
sunken structure. Whatever the origin of these hearths, the point of 
concern here is that someone salvaged the brick and tile fragments 
from a Colonial site, presumably nearby. 

Except for six or seven whole, or restorable, bricks and a few siz- 
able brickbats, most of the pieces of brick had been worn down in- 
tentionally on one or more surfaces. A few examples are shown in 
Figure 1. Most of the abraded faces are perfectly flat, obviously re- 
sulting from being rubbed against a flat surface, although the faces 
of some are rounded. Two specimens are most unusual, displaying 
concave surfaces (Figure 2). 

Clearly these bricks had been used for other than construction 
purposes prior to being deposited in the hearths. One can only 
speculate on what this use had been. Possibly the concave specimens 
served for smoothing wooden objects, such as shafts for pikes, or 
handles for tools. The flat one might have been used for polishing 
armor or sharpening swords, axes, or other implements. It does not 

28 Sam H. Patterson, "Investigation of brick, tile, and 'mortar' and their possible 
raw materials from archeological excavations, Fort Raleigh, North Carolina," (un- 
published report released in open files by the United States Geological Survey, Septem- 
ber 20, 1965; copies available for consultation in the Geological Survey Library, 
Washington, D. C., and in the office of the superintendent, Cape Hatteras National 
Seashore, Manteo), 7, hereinafter cited as Patterson, USGS report. 

27 Harrington, Cittie of Ralegh, 40. 


: -k .. ■ • - ' \<^\*. 

il * " 

■ -' - - 

' ! * * - ':i 

Hr "' 


t ■". i x» \'.«-.^OMlfl 

^'W- <g^. 


1 I 

-I . -4 


Figure 2. Top and side views of the two concave specimens. The illustrations used in 
this article were supplied by the author. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 11 

seem likely that they were employed by housewives— Indian or 
white— for grinding corn or in other domestic pursuits. The flat sur- 
faces and the small size of some of the specimens seem to preclude 
any such use. One specimen, for example, was abraded on all six 
sides until it was reduced to only 1% x 1% x 2M inches (smallest ex- 
ample in Figure 1). 

Brick size is of interest, but not too helpful for dating purposes. 
Complete measurements can be secured on only four bricks but width 
and thickness are available on several fragments. The whole bricks 
are identical in size: 8% x 4/8 x 23s inches. Following are measurements 
on a total of seventeen specimens, including the four whole bricks: 

Inches Number 



Inches Number 

Inches Number 

4% 1 
4i/ 8 10 
4 5 

2% 5 
2% 7 
2 3 

37/ 8 1 

17/8 1 
1% 1 

The range reflected in the above table is no greater than expected 
in bricks fired in the same kiln and formed in the same set of molds. 
Bricks found stacked in a kiln excavated at Jamestown varied by 1 
inch in length, % of an inch in width, and % inch in thickness. 28 Such 
variation may be due to the character of the clay, extent of puddling 
and curing, and conditions of firing. In discussing bricks in six- 
teenth-century English buildings, Nathaniel Lloyd points out that 
in a single course any of the three dimensions may vary half an inch 
or more, which he attributes, in part, to lack of care in making the 
wooden molds. 29 

Even so, the dimensions of the general run of brick of any given 
period fall within a relatively close range. Bricks in English buildings 
dating from 1550 to 1600 are generally 9 to 9M inches in length, 
4 to 4/2 inches in width, and 23s to 2% inches in thickness. In his rather 
lengthy table of brick sizes for English buildings, Lloyd records none 
as small in all dimensions as the ones from Fort Raleigh. 30 Their 
counterparts are found, however, in some of the buildings in Virginia 
dating from the first half of the seventeenth century. Those in the 
church tower at Jamestown, for example, which date from about 
1640, are 8% x 4% x 2%. But the majority of seventeenth-century bricks 

28 Harrington, "Brickmaking at Jamestown," 35. 

29 Nathaniel Lloyd, A History of English Brickwork (London: H. G. Montgomery; 
New York: W. Helburn, 1925), 11-12, hereinafter cited as Lloyd, English Brickwork. 

30 Lloyd, English Brickwork, 89-100. 

12 The North Carolina Historical Review 

in the Virginia colony are closer to those in sixteenth-century English 

The 1571 charter of the Tylers' and Bricklayers' Company es- 
tablished the regulation brick size at 9 x 4/4 x 2M. 31 The next attempt 
to provide uniformity in bricks was the 1625 proclamation, which set 
the size at 9 x 4% x 2M. 32 A casual glance at tabulations of brick sizes 
for buildings of that period in England suggests that these regulations 
were ignored, but actually the variation may have been due to tech- 
nical factors and carelessness, and not to intentional flaunting of the 
law. It would be unsafe to draw any conclusion as to period of manu- 
facture of the Fort Raleigh bricks from size alone. The sample is 
too small to be of real statistical value, and other considerations are 
of greater importance than size in determining the age and pro- 
venience of these bricks. 

Although the Fort Raleigh bricks are relatively uniform in overall 
dimensions, they are more irregular individually than others the 
writer has observed from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century struc- 
tures. For example, the thickness measured at opposite ends of a 
given brick may vary as much as half an inch. This could have been 
caused by improper treatment while drying, or by stacking the bricks 
in the kiln before they were cured adequately. Other evidences of 
hurrying the manufacturing process can be seen, such as large in- 
terior voids and pitted exterior surfaces. It is possible, of course, that 
we are dealing with discards, although some of the bricks in the 
group are quite uniform in shape and texture. 

The tile fragments recovered from the 1965 excavations and the 
one found earlier in the fort ditch are typical of the flat, shingle 
tiles of the period. They were also called "pin tiles," derived from 
the method of attachment. Two holes near one end were punched 
in the tile while still in the mold. This sometimes resulted in a thin 
layer of clay completely or partially covering the bottom of the hole, 
which was easily punched out when a wooden pin was inserted. With 
short pins, or pegs, having been driven into the holes, the tiles were 
hung over laths, spaced at proper intervals across the rafters. 

The tiles found at Fort Raleigh are especially hard and dense, and 
of uniform texture. They appear to be a better quality than many of 
the tiles found at Jamestown, particularly those known to have been 
made in the Virginia colony. Enough fragments were recovered to 

31 Lloyd, English Brickwork, 12, 46. 

32 Lloyd, English Brickwork, 12, 46-47. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 13 

account for about three whole tiles. They probably represent more 
than that number, however, since very few pieces could be joined. 
It is quite evident that these fragments were brought in a broken 
state to the area where they were excavated, and not as whole tiles. 
Overall size of the tiles cannot be determined, but they are con- 
sistently /2 inch thick. This conforms with the majority of tiles found 
at Jamestown, although their thickness varies from % to % of an inch. 
Those from the kiln excavated at Jamestown are nearer % inch, which 
was also the thickness prescribed in an earlier English statute. 33 

The next matter to consider is where these brick and tile were 
made and how they got to the north end of Roanoke Island. Un- 
doubtedly, the bricks were manufactured for normal construction 
purposes, presumably for foundations, fireplaces, and chimneys. It is 
hard to conceive of the colonists making bricks just for use as tool 
sharpeners or armor polishers. If we can trust Glande, it was also 
planned to use bricks in the fort construction, as well as the houses. 
We can be reasonably certain that this objective was never achieved, 
since the fort's excavation yielded only two brick fragments. This 
assumes, of course, that the restored earthwork is, in fact, Ralph 
Lane's "new fort." 

If the bricks in question had been salvaged from a house ruin, some 
evidence of lime mortar might have been left on the whole bricks 
and the several brickbats that had not been reused as abraders. How- 
ever, this is not the case. What at first appeared to be a thin layer of 
mortar on some of the bricks, was later determined to be the fire- 
hardened clay in which the bricks, tile, and other refuse were im- 
bedded in the hearths. In any event, it could not be mortar from 
laid bricks, since it occurs on the abraded surfaces of some of the 
smallest specimens. 

It is difficult to see how, or when, the colonists could have salvaged 
bricks from a structure. Assuming Glande's testimony was correct 
and the colonists actually made bricks and used them in their first 
houses, these buildings would not have been in such ruinous con- 
dition that bricks would have been salvaged from them, even by the 
settlers who came two years later. We know that when the second 
group arrived in 1587 they found the houses still standing, and that 
they set about to repair them. 34 The evidence, therefore, is fairly 
strong that the bricks in question were never used in the construc- 
tion of a building. This does not mean, however, that the colonists 

33 Harrington, "Brickmaking at Jamestown," 37. 

34 Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, II, 524. 

14 The North Carolina Historical Review 

did not use bricks in their houses; only that these particular bricks 
were not so used. 

The second major question is whether bricks were actually made 
by the colonists, as claimed by Darby Glande. Laboratory tests 
helped in this instance. Samples of sub-surface clay, which is actually 
a clayey sand, were tested by the United States Geological Survey, as 
were also several of the brick fragments, as well as samples of the 
hardened clay from the hearths. The following is quoted from the 
report on these tests: 

The archeological specimens and clayey sands were investigated by sev- 
eral methods. All samples and specimens were examined by a binocular 
microscope. . . . Test pieces of the "local clay" were made and fired along 
with chips of brick fragments. The mineralogy of a "local clay" and 
several archeological specimens was determined by optical and X-ray 
methods. 35 

Technical details of the laboratory tests need not be included here; 
conclusions as to the probable origin of the bricks will suffice. 

The mineral content of all the archeological specimens from Fort Ra- 
leigh, North Carolina, except the tile, is virtually the same as that of 
clayey sand, referred to in the sample descriptions submitted as "local 
clay" ; and the brick fragments and "local clay" have essentially identical 
physical properties when fired. The conclusion that all the Fort Raleigh 
specimens, except the tile, were made from local materials, therefore, is 
reasonably certain. 36 

Accepting this evidence that bricks were made locally, one can 
properly ask if they necessarily were made by the Raleigh colonists. 
The natural response to this question is, "If not by the colonists, who 
else?" Although two parties were sent from Jamestown in the seven- 
teenth century to look for the settlement, and Lawson visited the site 
in 1701, 37 there is no evidence that any attempt by Europeans again 
to settle on Roanoke Island was made until the early eighteenth cen- 
tury. Even that was unsuccessful. The Outer Banks did not benefit 
immediately from new legislation and other stimuli to the establish- 
ment of towns in the Carolina colony. In fact, a century passed before 
there were more than a few isolated land owners living on the island. 
Land records covering property in the general vicinity of the fort 
can be traced back only to 1803. 38 It is not known when Indians last 

35 Patterson, USGS report, 3. 

36 Patterson, USGS report, 8. 

37 Frances Latham Harriss (ed.), Lawson' s History of North Carolina (Richmond: 
Garrett and Massie, Second Edition, 1952), 61. 

38 Harrington, Cittie of Ralegh, 48. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 15 

lived or hunted on Roanoke Island, but they almost certainly were 
not building campfires in the fort ditch or in any remnant of the 
original settlement by the time there was sufficient white population 
to have started the manufacture of brick. 

The tests made by the Geological Survey show that the bricks were 
not fired to a temperature above 1,575° F., since the chemical illite, 
which is destroyed at about this temperature, is still present. The 
report concludes that these bricks are so weak and friable "it seems 
improbable that such poor brick would have been shipped from 
Europe. . . ," 39 Brick kilns, however, do not yield uniformly good 
bricks, and it is conceivable that the first hurried attempt to make 
bricks in 1585 was not overly efficient. The better bricks might have 
been used for construction, while the underfired, softer ones were 
thrown out. Could not these discards have been the ones subsequently 
used for a purpose other than construction? 

Laboratory analysis helps here, too. Test pieces made from the 
local clay and fired to 2,000° F. showed the same physical charac- 
teristics as the bricks. So even the best specimens from the kiln would 
not have been good bricks. This does not mean that the colonists 
would have refused to use the results of their brickmaking efforts 
for construction purposes. It might be hazardous to build a wall with 
such poor bricks, but it is doubtful if that would have deterred a 
desperate and determined settler from putting them in house footings 
and fireplaces. It is possible, however, that the poor results of the first 
effort discouraged further attempts at brickmaking and that relatively 
few were ever made. After the initial effort, it must have been ap- 
parent to an experienced brickmaker that Hariot's appraisal of the 
native resources was inaccurate in respect to the clay being "excellent 
good" for bricks. 

Archaeology and modern laboratory technology have thus joined 
hands in the vindication of Darby Glande— at least in respect to 
one of his allegations. But what about tilemaking, which Glande also 
claimed was started as soon as the settlers landed? 

Unlike bricks, laboratory tests show quite clearly that the tiles 
found in the excavations were not made locally. The report on these 
tests reads in part as follows: 

The tile fragments . . . , as observed under the microscope, contain 
much more fine-grained material and are appreciably redder than either 
the other archeological specimens or the fired "local clay." . . . That the 
tile could not have been made from a raw material such as "local clay" 

Patterson, USGS report, 8. 

16 The North Carolina Historical Review 

sample 2 is indicated by the abundance of fine-grained material and the 
presence of hematite which is not abundant in the "local clay" or in the 
test pieces fired at high temperatures. Also, chips of the tile fired at 
2,000 °F are much harder, more dense, and redder than the "local clay" 
fired at the same temperature. 40 

Not only were the tiles in question not made from the same material 
as the bricks, but usable tiles could not possibly have been made from 
this earth. 

The above results do not, by themselves, rule out local manu- 
facture, since earth of the type used in the tiles may occur elsewhere 
in eastern North Carolina. It seems highly unlikely, however, that 
the colonists would have brought in material for tiles at the same 
time that they were making bricks from local clay. There is an 
additional argument in support of this deduction. These were well- 
made tiles and must have been produced in an established plant, 
rather than in a makeshift operation suggested by the poorly made 
bricks. The only reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that they arrived 
by ship from Europe. 

The association of the tile with the bricks in the firepits, and the 
presence of a tile fragment of identical thickness and appearance 
at the bottom of the fort ditch, make it reasonably certain that the 
tile is of the same period as the brick. This type of tile would have 
no practical use except to cover a building, and it does not seem 
likely that fewer than enough to roof at least one cottage would 
have been brought to the colony. This would mean that as many as 
2,000 tiles, as well as possibly a kiln-load of bricks, are waiting to be 
discovered by some future archaeologist. 

Since Lane himself lived in a thatched cottage, what could have 
been the intended use of roofing tiles? Perhaps it was planned to roof 
the chapel with something more fitting, which suggests the possi- 
bility that the tiles were associated with the second venture of 1587, 
when colonizing plans were on a more permanent basis. 

Evidence for the kiln having been in the general vicinity of the fort, 
although not conclusive, is suggested by the results of the labora- 
tory testing. A second sample of earth, which superficially resembled 
the one from the archaeological trench, was secured half a mile west 
of the fort. Tests showed it to be "much lower in silt and clay, and 
when wet probably would not develop sufficient plasticity to be 
workable." 41 Although only suggestive at this point, these results 

40 Patterson, USGS report, 6. 

41 Patterson, USGS report, 3. 

Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement 17 

present a possible approach for narrowing down the general area for 
further exploration in search of the settlement site. 

On the basis of present knowledge, the following conclusions seem 
valid: Although bricks were made by the Raleigh colonists, the 
results were not too satisfactory, and there is no evidence that the 
bricks were used for construction purposes. The location of the brick- 
yard and kiln is not known but was probably not far from the site 
of the restored fort. The colonists were in possession of roofing tiles, 
which presumably were brought from England. There is no evidence 
that the colonists attempted to make roofing tile or that tiles were 
used on a structure at the Raleigh settlement. The new evidence does 
not add any clue to the settlement's location, although the possibility 
of its being in the vicinity of the fort is enhanced. In addition to 
limiting the area of search for the settlement site, there is a greater 
possibility than previously thought that durable construction remains 
may be found. And even if bricks and tiles were never incorporated 
into a structure, it is reasonable to assume that there exists a con- 
centration of these materials. 

North Carolina State Library 


By Helen Burr Smith and Elizabeth V. Moore * 

[Authors' Note: John Mare came near having two portraits, two bio- 
graphical studies so unlike that the subjects might easily have been two 
different men. The details concerning one of this dissimilar pair were 
assembled in New York and for the other in North Carolina by compilers 
who had never heard of each other or, more to the point, of each other's 
interest in John Mare. It was only by accident that the two widely differ- 
ing preliminary sketches could be put together as a portrait of one man. 
.Neither sketch was complete when collaboration began. All of the avail- 
able details of Mare's life through 1774 were assembled by Helen Burr 
Smith in New York and of his later life, with certain exceptions which 
will be pointed out, were assembled by Elizabeth V. Moore in Edenton. 

The late Edward W. Spires of Edenton, clerk of court in Chowan County 
for many years and secretary of Unanimity Lodge in Edenton, once idly 
remarked that John Mare, a well-documented merchant and politician, of 
Edenton was an artist, though he could not recall how he got that idea. 1 
Coming from someone so accustomed to weighing facts, the statement 
deserved careful consideration. Diligent inquiry into the origin of locally- 
owned portraits dating from the last quarter of the eighteenth century 
failed to reveal any signed by John Mare. A further check on the very 
few mentioned in wills, inventories, or letters was equally unsuccessful. 
None was known to be in North Carolina museums or collections of paint- 
ings. There was no visible evidence that the busy John Mare of Edenton 
ever picked up a brush and palette. As a last resort the records of 
Unanimity Lodge were rechecked by William P. Goodwin, who succeeded 
Spires as secretary, to see whether any clue could be drawn from them. 
There was nothing, not even a hint. Only one other source of information 
remained, the Masonic lodge from which Mare had transferred to Un- 
animity Lodge, and it seemed presumptuous to ask for such a search of its 
records as had proved futile in Edenton. 

* Miss Smith, of New York City, is a frequent contributor to the New-York His- 
torical Society Quarterly, the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society 
Record, American Collector, and Antiques; Miss Moore, of Edenton, pursues the study 
of local history as an avocation. 

1 Helen Burr Smith to Elizabeth V. Moore, September 8, 1964. "One of the William 
(Joseph) Williams descendants [Colonel John F. Williams, Jr.] who lives in Cali- 
fornia . . . told me he made a trip to Edenton years ago to search for data on John 
Mare and William (Joseph) Williams. He saw Mr. E. W. Spires, clerk of the court, 
so, of course, he told Mr. Spires that John Mare was an artist." 

John Mare 19 

At that discouraging point the Book-of-the-Month Club News for 
February, 1958, used for a cover illustration a painting owned by the 
Metropolitan Museum in New York, the "Portrait of a Man" painted by 
John Mare. Here was proof that at least a man with that name had been 
painting in New York before a man with the same name had moved from 
New York to Edenton. The art editor of the bulletin put the writers 
in touch with each other, and this article is the result. 2 ] 

"John Mare Jun r ., Limner," 3 was born in New York in 1739, the 
eldest of the three children 4 of John Mare and his wife Mary Bes, who 
were married in the Dutch Church in New York, April 26, 1738. 5 
The father was English, from Devonshire, 6 the mother presumably 
of Dutch origin. The second child, Mary, must have been only a year 
or two younger than her brother, and had two small children by the 
time her father made his will in the early fall of 1761. The third child, 
Henry, much younger, was baptized November 5, 1749. 7 

The Mares were evidently Anglicans, members of Trinity parish in 
New York City. The entry concerning the parents' marriage is the only 
time the name appears in the records of the Dutch Church, while at 
least one child and one grandchild were baptized in the Anglican 
church. Most of the records of Trinity Church for the third quarter 

2 Permission granted by the editors to use material from Helen Burr Smith, "John 
Mare (1739-C.1795), New York Portrait Painter, with Notes on the Two William 
Williams," New-York Historical Society Quarterly, XXXV (October, 1951), 355-399, 
hereinafter cited as Smith, "John Mare"; William P. Goodwin, secretary of Unanimity 
Lodge No. 7, A. F. and A. M., Edenton, Charles A. Harris, grand secretary of the 
Grand Lodge of North Carolina, and Wendell K. Walker, director of the library and 
museum of the Grand Lodge of the state of New York, searched Masonic records not 
open to the public and furnished needed information to the authors. 

3 New-York Historical Society Collection 1885, 206, hereinafter cited as NYHS Coll. 
1885. Other collections of the New-York Historical Society will be similarly cited. 

4 In a time when a man was expected not to marry until he could support a wife 
(about nineteen or twenty years of age), girls usually married at sixteen or seventeen. 
The birth of Mary Mare's son a good year before John's points to the probability that 
her brother was older than she. If John Mare had been younger, there would normally 
have been a greater interval between the two babies. As for Henry Mare, his parents 
had been married more than eleven years when he was baptized, clear evidence that 
he was considerably younger than John and Mary. 

5 "Marriages from 1639 to 1801 in the Reformed Dutch Church — New Amsterdam 
and New York City," Collection of the New York Genealogical and Biographical So- 
ciety, IX, 162, hereinafter cited as "Dutch Church Marriages." 

e 'NYHS Coll. 1898, 36; "Dutch Church Marriages," IX, 162. 

7 "A Registry of Christenings Kept by the Rev. John Ogilvie Began June ye 9th 
1749," manuscript in the parish office of Trinity Episcopal Church, New York City, 
hereinafter cited as Ogilvie Registry. Henry Mare's baptism was the third performed 
by Ogilvie after he returned from his ordination in England. The entry reads: u New 
York November 5, 1749, Henry, son of John & Mary Mairs." 

20 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of the eighteenth century were destroyed by fire, 8 but the Reverend 
John Ogilvie's personal "Registry" of the baptisms he performed par- 
tially replaces the lost parish registers. 

John Mare, Sr., described himself at least once as a "Mariner," 9 
though when he was admitted to the freedom of the city of New York, 
January 9, 1754, he was listed as a "Labourer." 10 His possible illiter- 
acy 11 did not keep him from prospering. At a time when hardly one 
man in four in New York City had property worth £60, 12 he acquired 
personal property and real estate of sufficient value for one lot to be 
mortgaged for at least £150. It was that lot, described in a 1761 
mortgage and devised by the father to the son, which identified the 
latter as an artist, for when he in his turn mortgaged it ten years later, 
he described himself as a "Portrait-Painter." 13 

John Mare, Sr., died before December 5, 1766, 14 and his widow pre- 
sumably before December 4, 1771. 15 Of his son Henry Mare's history 
nothing is known, and not much more of his daughter Mary's. Her 
father's will, dated October 6, 1761, referred to her as "my daughter 
Mary Williams" and to her children as "my Grandson William Wil- 
liams" and "my little Granddaughter named Mary Williams." 16 The 
grandson, William Williams, will be the subject of study later in this 

In 1759 John Mare, Jr., was confident enough of his skill to go to 
Albany seeking commissions. He did not go alone. The next spring the 

8 In 1751 and again in 1776, "Records of Trinity Church Parish, New York City," 
New York Genealogical and Biographical Society Record, LXVII (July, 1936), 201. 

9 New York County Will Books, Surrogate's office, New York City, Liber 25, 414, 
hereinafter cited as New York County Will Books; see also NYHS Coll. 1908, 280. 

10 NYHS Coll. 1885, 179. Becoming a free man of the city of New York meant swear- 
ing to obey the laws and pay one's taxes. See Herbert L. Osgood and Others, (eds.), 
Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York, 1675-1776 (New York: Dodd, 
Mead & Co., First Series, 8 volumes, 1905), III, 392-393, hereinafter cited as Minutes of 
the Common Council. 

u It may have been illness rather than illiteracy which made it necessary for him to 
sign by mark his will and a mortgage to Andrew Marcellus, both dated October 6, 
1761. His will mentions his "low state of health." See Mortgages Liber 1, 252, in 
Surrogate's Office, New York City, hereinafter cited as Mortgages Liber. 

™NYHS Coll. 19U5, Chapter VI, Note 101, and the text to which it pertains, show- 
ing the relative economic status of adult white male freeholders of New York County. 

13 John Mare, Jr., to Ennis Graham, merchant, mortgage dated December 4, 1771, 
registered March 10, 1772, Mortgages Liber 2, 503. 

u His will was proved that day. 

lo By the terms of his father's will, John Mare, Jr., was not to come into possession 
of Lot 38 until after his mother's death or remarriage, and there is no hint of the 

1H The order in which they are named, and the word "little" applied to the grand- 
daughter, suggests that the grandson, less than two years old, was the older of the 
two children. 

John Mare 21 

Reverend John Ogilvie, then rector of St. Peter's Church, Albany, 17 
was called upon to baptize the child of former parishioners at 
Trinity. He noted it in his "Registry": "Albany April 15, 1760— John 
son of John and Ann Mairs Mother's Maiden Name Ann Morris." 18 It 
has not proved possible to discover Ann Morris' background or any 
further mention of her or her child. The baby was not mentioned in 
his grandfather's will made eighteen months after his birth, as Mary's 
children were; and Ann Mare did not sign the mortgage of her hus- 
band's lot in 1771 or give her consent to the disposal of property in 
which she had a dower right, as was required by English law. Ap- 
parently she and the child had both died. 

The earliest portrait ever attributed to John Mare is that of Henry 
Livingston, 19 a member of the great Hudson Valley family, signed and 
dated: "Jn° Mare/PinxVl760." It could have been painted at Livings- 
ton Manor during Mare's return trip to New York, or later in the city, 
where Livingston represented Dutchess County in the Provincial As- 
sembly. The portrait, however, is now considered to be of questionable 
authenticity. There is a family tradition that an unsigned, undated 
portrait of Henry's brother Robert Gilbert Livingston 20 was also 
painted by Mare. The slant of the eyes, though, the use of landscape 
background, the comparative youthfulness of the sitter, and his mark- 
ed resemblance to the subject of John Wollaston's portrait of Robert 

17 Milton W. Hamilton, "John Mare's Portrait of Sir John Johnson," New-York 
Historical Society Quarterly, XLIII (October, 1959), 450, hereinafter cited as Hamil- 
ton, "Portrait of Sir John Johnson." Ogilvie had returned to Albany after the capture 
of Fort Niagara by troops with whom he served as chaplain. See Smith, "John Mare," 

w Ogilvie Registry, in which the name Mare is consistently misspelled Mairs. The 
marriage record of John Mare and Ann Morris has not been found; it was probably 
destroyed with the other records of Trinity Church in 1776. 

10 Dutchess County [N.Y.] Historical Society Year Book 1939, 26, 29; New-York 
Historical Society Annual Report for the Year 19^2, 18-21, hereinafter cited as 
NYHS Annual Report; also information from Willis L. M. Reese, a descendant, who 
owned the portrait in 1951. Henry Livingston, born at Kingston, N.Y., and baptized 
September 8, 1714, was the second son of Gilbert and Cornelia (Beekman) Livingston. 
About 1741-1742 he married Susanna Conklin. From 1759 through 1768 he was a 
member of the General Assembly of the province. He served as colonel of a New York 
regiment which fought at Monmouth Court House. He died February 10, 1799. See 
Smith, "John Mare," 387; see also John Richard Alden (ed.), The War of the Revolu- 
tion, by Christopher Ward (New York: Macmillan Company, 2 volumes, 1952), II, 

20 Rita Susswein Gottesman, The Arts and Crafts in New York, 1726-1776 (New 
York: New-York Historical Society, 1938), 44, hereinafter cited as Gottesman, Arts 
and Crafts; Edward Brockholst Livingston, The Livingstons of Livingston Manor 
(New York: Privately printed, 1910) ; Florence Van Rensselaer, The Livingston 
Family in America (New York: Privately printed, 1949) ; Mrs. Philip K. Condict to 
Helen Burr Smith, letter dated August 1, 1951. Robert Gilbert Livingston, born at 
Kingston, N. Y., January 11, 1713, was the eldest son of Gilbert and Cornelia (Beek- 
man) Livingston. On November 3, 1740, he married Catherine McPhaedres. He died 
in New York City before September 4, 1789. See Smith, "John Mare," 389. 

22 The North Carolina Historical Review 

R. Livingston (cousin of the other two), all suggest that the Robert 
Gilbert Livingston portrait is a copy by Mare of an original painted 
by Wollaston some ten years earlier. 

By the fall of 1761, when his father made his will, Mare was ap- 
parently settled in New York, 21 although the first official record of his 
activity as an artist was that of his admittance to the freedom of the 
city as "John Mare Jun r ., Limner," October 1, 1765. 22 An incident 
which occurred during the following summer proved that he had 
established a reputation for satisfactory work. In March, 1766, the 
Sons of Liberty advanced the idea that the province of New York 
should erect a statue of William Pitt in appreciation of his efforts in 
getting the Stamp Act repealed. In June the Assembly accepted and 
acted on this suggestion, commissioning a London sculptor to execute 
not only the statue of Pitt but also a statue of his jealous sovereign, 
King George III, to be erected in New York at the same time. 23 The 
members of the Common Council of the city, equally enthusiastic 
about Pitt and equally wary of King George's temper, had taken even 
earlier action, most of it prudently omitted from their minutes. Wheth- 
er they commissioned an English artist to paint a portrait of Pitt, or em- 
ployed William Davis to buy one abroad, or simply accepted one from 
him as a gift is not surely known. Neither is it known whether they 
commissioned Mare to paint a portrait of the King (there were nu- 
merous engravings to work from ) or simply let it be known that they 
needed one and would buy the most acceptable one offered to them. 
The minutes of their meeting on June 10, 1766, recorded the follow- 

Mr. Mayor Informed this Board that William Davis of this City Mar- 
riner hath lately Delivered to him to be Presented to this Board the picture 
of the Right Honourable William Pitt, Sat in an Elegant and Genteel 
frame, and this Board in order to Demonstrate the Great value and esteem 
they have for the person of so great a Patriot & friend to America as the 
said William Pitt, do hereby in turn for the Compliment of the said 
William Davis, ORDER that the Freedom of this Corporation be prepared 
& presented to him, & that the Clerk prepare one accordingly & deliver 
the same to M r . Mayor who is desired to present it to the said William 
Davis with the thanks of this Board. 24 

21 This inference is based on the fact that his father's will should have referred to 
him as "my son John Mare of Albany" if he were still living there. 

22 NYHS Co 11. 1 885, 206. 

23 Alexander J. Wall, "The Statues of King George III and the Honorable William 
Pitt Erected in New York City, 1770," New-York Historical Society Quarterly Bulle- 
tin, IV (July, 1920), 37. 

24 Minutes of the Common Council, VII, 20; NYHS Coll. 1885, 538-539. 

John Mare 23 

There was no perceptible fervor in the businesslike entry immediate- 
ly preceding that, which 

ORDERED the mayor Issue his warrant to the Treasurer of this City 
to pay to John Mare Jun r . or order the sum of £24 for the Painting of his 
present Majesty which he presented to this Corporation. 25 

The minutes made the Common Council appear merely to have ac- 
cepted with grace two portraits which happened to have been given 
to them at the same time. It is more likely that they kept the portrait 
of Pitt, which they really wanted, out of sight until the best New York 
artist available could "present" them with a portrait of King George. 
The freedom of the city for one and £24 for the other were rather 
generous expressions of gratitude, if that is all they were. There is no 
record of the fate of the King's portrait and no trace of it has ever been 

Three paintings, however, have survived from the following year. A 
portrait of John Keteltas 26 of New York City, signed and dated "Jn.° 
Mare./ Pinx t ./1767," is one of the most characteristic examples of 
Mare's work but is more famous as "the first, widely known trompe 
Voeil in American Art history." 27 On the pleated ruffle of the sitter's 
wristband is a common housefly, "the only case ... in American paint- 
ing where an insect was put into a portrait." 28 

For certain minds it is still a temptation to try brushing the insect 
away ; and if such an impulse is a tribute to artistic quality, Mare should 
be acknowledged as a master. His technical feat is amazing even to the 
sophisticated eye. . . . 29 

A portrait of an unknown young man, signed and dated "Jn° Mare./ 
Pinx.Vl767.," is the only original portrait by Mare which is more 
than waist length, the only one which shows both hands, the only 
one which includes any background (a chair and drapery). Perhaps 
the artist was not pleased with this experiment; perhaps the back- 
ground took too long to paint. At any rate, he never tried this again. 

25 Minutes of the Common Council, VII, 20. 

26 Life in America, A Special Loan Exhibition of Paintings Held During the Period 
of the New York World's Fair (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1939), 14. 
John Keteltas, born October 26, 1739, was a brother of Abraham Keteltas and a mem- 
ber of one of the oldest families in New York. He died February 28, 1768. See Smith, 
"John Mare," 368, 393. The portrait of John Keteltas is now owned by the New-York 
Historical Society by bequest of the late Edith M. K. Wetmore. Carolyn Scoon, assist- 
ant curator, Museum of New- York Historical Society, to the editor, May 3, 1966, 
letter in files of North Carolina Historical Review. 

^William Sawitsky, lecture at the New-York Historical Society, January 27, 1942, 
hereinafter cited as Sawitsky lecture, January 27, 1942. 
28 Sawitsky lecture, January 27, 1942. 
"Virgil Barker, American Painting (New York: Macmillan Company, 1950), 83. 

24 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The third painting is a copy of another Wollaston portrait, that of 
Henry Lloyd 30 of Lloyd's Neck, Long Island. It is signed and dated 
"Jn.° Mare fecit/ 1767/ —not pinxit, the term an artist used to sign an 
original work, but fecit, the term an engraver used to sign his copy of 
an original. John Mare was as honest as his work. The Mare copy so 
perfectly reproduced Wollaston's typical mannerisms 31 that the picture 
was believed to be a Wollaston original until minute examination re- 
vealed the signature. The circumstances in which both pictures were 
painted are known. On May 22, 1750, Henry Lloyd, Jr., wrote to his 

... if it pleases God to give you so much health as to visit New York 
again pray let me begg it as a favour that you sett for your Picture and 
let it be at my Expence. 32 

The "Expence" for the Wollaston portrait may have been somewhat 
greater than the son had anticipated, for he wrote his father again on 
June 17, 1751, to say, "I send 8 Bundles Hay more which hope will be 
sufficient to complete the charge of your picture [. I] have ordered 
Conkling to pay you the ballance." 33 By 1767 Henry Lloyd, Jr., and 
his brother, Dr. James Lloyd, were living in Boston, and a third broth- 
er Joseph Lloyd was living in their old home, where the Wollaston 
portrait still hung. Dr. James Lloyd secured Henry's permission to 
have a copy made of it for himself and wrote to Joseph, August 15, 

I have got Mr. Mare to take a copy of my father's picture and brother 
[Henry] Lloyd has consented that he should take the picture to New York 
with him. I hope you will let him have it but see that it is carefully packed 
in a box fit for the purpose. 34 

That letter may indicate that John Mare visited Boston in the sum- 
mer of 1767. He may have gone there again in 1768, for a portrait be- 

30 Dorothy Barck (ed.), Papers of the Lloyd Family of the Manor of Queens Village, 
Lloyd's Neck, Long Island, New York, 1654-1826 (New York: New-York Historical 
Society, 2 volumes, 1927) ; the Rev. Melancthon Lloyd Woolsey, The Lloyd Manor of 
Queens Village (Baltimore: [The Order of Colonial Lords of Manors in America], 
1925) ; also information from Mrs. J. Nelson Borland, who owned the portrait in 1951 
and whose husband was a descendant of Dr. James Lloyd, the original owner. Henry 
Lloyd was born in Boston, November 28, 1685. In 1708 he married Rebecca, daughter 
of John Nelson, of Boston. In 1711 he moved to his manor of Queens Village, Lloyd's 
Neck, Long Island, where he died March 18, 1763. See Smith, "John Mare," 394. 

31 George C. Groce, "John Wollaston's Portrait of Thomas Appleford, Dated 1746," 
New-York Historical Society Quarterly, XXXIV (October, 1950), 261; John Hill 
Morgan, Early American Painters Illustrated by Examples in the Collection of the 4 
New-York Historical Society (New York: New York Historical Society, 1921), 48- 

"NYHS Coll. 1926, 453. 
"NYHS Coll. 1926, 484. 
Zi Smith, "John Mare," 367. 

John Mare 25 

lieved to be of John Torrey 35 of Boston is signed and dated: "Jn°. 
Mare/Pinx.' 1768." It could equally well have been painted in New 
York for there would have been nothing unusual about a visit there by 
John Torrey and his brother William, who were merchants. A Torrey 
family history reproduces the photograph 36 of a strikingly similar por- 
trait known to be that of William Torrey, 37 already in poor condition 
when it was photographed, and not yet located. The reproduction 
does not show any signature; the photograph appears to have been 
cropped to fit the page. If, on the other hand, it was not cropped (and 
therefore shows the whole portrait), and if this is a Mare portrait, 
as it seems to be, it is the only one in which the subject is shown 
in less than waist length except one later pastel. 

During the 1760's John Mare undoubtedly painted other members 
of the prominent families of New York and the Hudson Valley. His 
known portraits are sufficient proof that he had contacts with many 
of them. One of John Keteltas' kinsmen was Gerard G. Beekman 38 of 
New York City, who later added the Beekman wing to Philipse Castle. 
His unsigned portrait, so closely resembling that of Keteltas (except 
for the fly) that it is attributed almost without question to Mare, was 
probably painted in 1769, the year of Beekman's marriage. 39 Another 
unsigned portrait, markedly like those of Keteltas and Beekman, is 

35 Frederic C. Torrey, The Torrey Families and Their Children in America (Lake- 
hurst, N. J.: Privately printed, 1924), I, 141-145, hereinafter cited as Torrey, The 
Torrey Families; Frederick Holbrook Metcalf, a descendant who owned the portrait in 
1951, to Helen Burr Smith, August 3, September 10, 1951. John Torrey was baptized 
in the First Church, Boston, October 18, 1734. A baker and merchant, he married 
first Susannah Bowditch, on January 12, 1758; their son William was one of the 
original members of the Society of the Cincinnati. John Torrey then married Hannah 
Bean on October 1, 1766. He died in Boston, February .9, 1808. His identification as 
the subject of this portrait is based on family tradition and the marked likeness of 
the subject to that of a portrait known to be a painting of John Torrey's brother 
William. See Smith, "John Mare," 395. 

38 Torrey, The Torrey Families, I, 144. 

37 Torrey, The Torrey Families, I, 143; reproduction, I, 144. William Torrey, born 
June 7, 1729, was a brother of John Torrey and, like him, a merchant. On November 
1, 1750, he married Abigail Nichols in Boston. The date of his death is unknown. The 
location and ownership of the portrait are not known. See Smith "John Mare," 395. 

38 William B. Aitken, Distinguished Families in America Descended from Wilhelmus 
Beekman and Jan Thomasse Van Dyke (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912), 21, 
hereinafter cited as Aitken, Distinguished Families; William F. Davidson, "Portraits 
and Landscapes at Philipse Castle," American Collector, XIII (May, 1944), 14; Hugh 
Grant Rowell, "Philipse Castle, 1683 to 1944," American Collector, XIII (May, 1944), 
6. Gerard Beekman, born in 1746, was married in 1769 to Cornelia Van Cortlandt. 
During the Revolution they fled from New York to the Van Cortlandt mansion in 
Peekskill. On May 23, 1785, Beekman acquired the part of Philipse Manor which 
included the mill and the castle, where he died in 1822. Known from then until 1850 
as the Widow Beekman, his remarkable wife was the dominant influence at Philipse 
Castle for the sixty-five years she lived there. The portrait now hangs at the Philipse 
Castle Restoration. See Smith, "John Mare," 369. 396. 

39 Aitken, Distinguished Families, 133. 

26 The North Carolina Historical Review 

that of an unidentified gentleman of the Werden-Wilcocks family, 40 
friends of the Livingstons. 

Three other portraits, two of them dated within the decade and 
signed with John Mare's name, should be mentioned. That of Gover- 
nor Robert Monckton of New York, marked "Jn° Mare/PinxVl761," 
resembles the questionable portrait of Henry Livingston. That of Gov- 
ernor Sir Henry Moore, Monckton's successor, though marked "Jn 
Mare/PinxV1766," is so different in style and size from his usual work 
that its authenticity was long in question. That of Dirck Brinckerhoff, 
a member of the Common Council which had bought Mare's portrait 
of King George III, was once tentatively attributed to Mare. After 
careful investigation, the two signatures are considered unconvincing 
and all three paintings by some hand other than Mare's. 

Through most of the 1760's, John Mare had very little competition 
in New York City. Benjamin West had left for Italy by 1760. 41 West's 
teacher, William Williams, after a year or two in the West Indies, 
settled in Philadelphia 42 for about six years. Thomas Mcllworth 43 
moved to Albany in 1762. Mare's only rival seems to have been Law- 
rence Kilburn, who had come from London in 1754 and in 1765 com- 

i0 NYHS Coll. 1905, 162-163; NYHS Coll. 1915, 504. The New York firm of Gins- 
burg & Levy, art dealers, acquired the portrait through an intermediary from a mem- 
ber of the Werden-Wilcocks family, along with a family coat of arms which, according 
to family tradition, had always accompanied the portrait. The portrait is now owned 
by Mr. Henry Flynt and is hung in Deerfield, Mass. See Antiques, LXX (September, 
1956), 261. 

41 James Thomas Flexner, America's Old Masters (New York: Viking Press, 1939), 
40-41, hereinafter cited as Flexner, America's Old Masters. 

42 For William Williams' history, see F. W. Bayley and C. E. Goodspeed (eds.), 
History of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design in the United States, by Wil- 
liam Dunlap (New Edition, 3 volumes, 1918), I, 30, 32, 39, 44-46, hereinafter cited 
as Bayley and Goodspeed, Arts of Design; Oral S. Coad and Edwin Mims, Jr., The 
American Stage, Volume XIV of Pageant of America: A Pictorial History of the 
United States, edited by R. H. Gabriel and Others (New Haven: Yale University 
Press [Independence Edition, 15 volumes], 1925-1929), 24; William Dunlap, History 
of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design in the United States (New York: 
G. P. Scott & Co., 1834), I, 32; Flexner, America's Old Masters, 30-32, 36; James 
Thomas Flexner, First Flowers of Our Wilderness (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1947), 
188; James Thomas Flexner, "The Amazing William Williams," Magazine of Art, 
XXXVII (November, 1944), 243-246, 276-278; John Gait, The Life and Studies of 
Benjamin West (Philadelphia: Algernon Graves, 1816), 39-40, 60-65; Algernon 
Graves, Dictionary of Artists (London: George Bell & Sons, 1884), 140, 182; Allen 
Johnson, Dumas Malone, and Others (eds.), Dictionary of American Biography (New 
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 22 volumes and index, 1928 — ), "Henry Dawkins," 
V, 150-151, and "Benjamin West," XX, 6-9; William Sawitsky, "Further Light on the 
Work of William Williams," New-York Historical Society Quarterly, XXV (July, 
1941), 101-112; John F. Williams, William Joseph Williams, Portrait Painter and His 
Descendants (Buffalo: Privately printed, 1933), passim, hereinafter cited as Williams, 
William Joseph Williams; G. C. Williamson (ed.), Dictionary of Painters and Engrav- 
ers, by Michael Bryan (London: George Bell & Sons, Ltd., New Edition, Revised and 
Enlarged, 1939), 567. 

43 Susan Sawitsky, "Thomas Mcllworth," New-York Historical Society Quarterly, 
XXXV (April, 1951), 117-139. 

John Mare 27 

placently advertised that "at present there is no other Portrait painter 
in the city but himself." 44 Then in 1767 John Durand and Abraham 
Delanoy arrived, in 1768 Cosmo Alexander (for a brief stay), in 1769 
Pierre Eugene Du Simitiere (advertising as a "minature painter") 
and William Williams, in 1771 John Singleton Copley, and in 1772 
Matthew Pratt. 45 There simply was not enough work to go around. 
Copley prospered, but the others had to supplement their earnings in 
other ways or look for commissions elsewhere. Kilburn, for example, 
ran a paint store and seems to have died in poverty. Delanoy, who 
had been West's pupil, had to waste his delicate craftsmanship on sign 
painting; 46 Williams returned to his native England; Simitiere and 
Pratt left the province; Mare decided to go back to Albany. 

To raise funds for the venture, "John Mare of the City of New 
York Portrait-Painter" on December 4, 1771, mortgaged to Ennis 
Graham of New York, merchant, for £150, the lot he had inherited 
from his father 47 in what the latter had considered the suburbs or 
"Outward of this City nigh fresh water." Lot 38 was a very narrow 
lot, only twenty-seven feet wide, lying on the east side of Mulberry 
Street and running back eighty-seven feet toward the lots adjoining 
Mott Street. 48 The mortgage called for repayment of the loan with in- 
terest on or before May 1, 1772. The Albany Gazette carried his ad- 

Albany, the 13th January, 1772. 

Mr. Mare, Portrait Painter, purposing to reside part of this Winter in 

Town; has taken Lodgings at the House of Mr. John Prince, and will 

be much obliged to such Gentlemen and Ladies, as may choose to favour 

him with their Commands. 49 

Among the gentlemen who did so choose— there is no evidence that 
Mare ever painted a portrait of a woman— was Sir John Johnson, 50 son 
of Sir William Johnson, superintendent of Indian affairs for the area 

44 Gottesman, Arts and Crafts, 3-5. 

45 Gottesman, Arts and Crafts, 3-7 ; George C. Groce, "New York Painting Before 
1800," New York History, (January, 1938), 54-57, hereinafter cited as Groce, "New 
York Painting"; William Kelby, Notes on American Artists, 1754-1820 (New York: 
New- York Historical Society, 1922), 1-9, hereinafter cited as Kelby, American 
Artists; William Sawitsky, Matthew Pratt, 1734-1805 (New York: New-York His- 
torical Society, 1942), 6, 16. 

48 Groce, "New York Painting," 51; Kelby, American Artists, 3, 8. 

47 Mortgages Liber 2, 503. 

48 The description comes from the 1761 mortgage by John Mare, Sr., to Andrew 
Marcellus, merchant. Mortgages Liber 1, 252. 

49 Albany Gazette (New York), January 27, 1772, transcription furnished by George 
C. Groce. 

50 William Bridgwater and Elizabeth J. Sherwood (eds.), Columbia Encyclopedia 
(New York: Columbia University Press [Second Edition], 1950), 1017-1018; Hamil- 
ton, "Portrait of Sir John Johnson," 441-451. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

John Mare's portrait of Sir John Johnson, executed in 1772, is owned by the State 
of New York and is hung in Johnson Hall, Johnstown, New York. Photograph repro- 
duced by courtesy of the Division of Archives and History, New York State Education 
Department, Albany, New York. 

north of the Ohio River. Like his father, Sir John was a good soldier 
and had great influence among the Indians, especially those of the 
Mohawk Valley. During the Revolution he became one of the most 
active Tory leaders and was later rewarded with the post of superin- 
tendent of Indian affairs in Canada. His portrait, 51 painted before his 
marriage, is signed with a curious monogram which Mare was to use 
again. The left vertical stroke of the letter M, with a dot above it, 
is curled to the left and upward from the bottom to form a /; the right 
half of the M is crossed by a horizontal stroke to form an A; and the 
right vertical stroke of the M is also the vertical stroke of an R and an 
E, with the top and bottom horizontal strokes of the E extended a 
little to the right of the curves of the R. 52 This extraordinary signature 

B1 NYHS Annual Report, 1953, 82. The portrait is owned by the state of New York 
and is hung in Johnson Hall, Johnstown, New York. 

52 Hamilton, "Portrait of Sir John Johnson," 449, note 1: "An accurate drawing 
of the monogram [from an identical one on a later portrait] is reproduced herewith 
(actual size) by courtesy of Mrs. Ingrid-Maerta Held, Painting Restorer of the 
[New-York Historical] Society." 

John Mare 29 

is followed by the date 1772. 

There are two indications that John Mare found Albany a profitable 
field for a painter; the mortgaged lot remained in his possession for 
many years, and he himself evidently felt that his residence there 
was "permanent" enough for him to join an Albany Masonic lodge 
(Masters Lodge No. 2, now No. 5). 53 The contact with Sir John John- 
son may have been either a cause or a result of Mare's interest in 
Masonry, for Johnson was provincial grand master, having been passed 
and raised in Royal Lodge of St. James in London before his return 
to New York in 1767. 54 In the winter of 1772-1773 both Mare and 
Johnson were visiting brothers of Ineffable Lodge, Albany. 55 Exactly 
how long Mare remained in Albany is unknown, though it seems most 



This copy of the monogram signature used by John Mare on his portraits of Sir John 
Johnson and Dr. Benjamin Young Prime was reproduced by Mrs. Ingrid-Maerta Held, 
painting restorer for the New-York Historical Society, New York City, and is used 
by courtesy of the society. 

likely that he returned to New York within the next year and trans- 
ferred his Masonic membership to St. John's Lodge No. 2. 56 

At any rate, he was living in New York in 1774, for in that year he 
painted portraits of Dr. Benjamin Young Prime 57 and John Coven- 

53 Wendell K. Walker to Charles A. Harris, January 23, 1961, hereinafter cited as 
Walker to Harris, January 23, 1961. Copy of letter in possession of H. B. Smith. 

"Hamilton, "Portrait of Sir John Johnson," 442. 

55 Milton W. Hamilton to Helen Burr Smith, November 9, 1962, letter in possession 
of H. B. Smith. 

66 Information from records of Unanimity Lodge, Edenton, supplied by William P. 
Goodwin, hereinafter cited as Records of Unanimity Lodge. 

57 Benjamin Young Prime, born December 20, 1733, died in 1791. His portrait was 
presented by a descendant to the New-York Historical Society in 1953. See NYHS 
Annual Report, 1953, 82. 



The North Carolina Historical Review 

y&mtnm m **£* - ***= ^mmr^;-^ 



An oil on canvas portrait of Dr. Benjamin 
Young Prime made by John Mare in 1774. 
Photograph reproduced by courtesy of the 
New- York Historical Society. 


This portrait of John Covenhoven is the 
only pastel known to have been executed 
by John Mare. Photograph by Einars J. 
Mengis, reproduced by courtesy of Shel- 
burne Museum, Inc., Shelburne, Vermont. 

hoven, 58 both of New York. Since both were married that year, it is 
likely that these were wedding portraits like those of Gerard Beekman 
and Sir John Johnson. The Prime portrait is signed with the same re- 
markable monogram as Johnson's, followed by an unusual form of 
the usual formula "pin* 1774." 59 The Covenhoven portrait, Mare's 
only known pastel and the only one of his signed paintings showing 
nothing more than the subject's head is signed and dated in the 
ordinary way: "John Mare/Pinx* 1774." 

58 John Covenhoven is believed to have been the son of John and Catherine (Remsen) 
Covenhoven, born February 2, 1752. On October 6, 1774, he married Catharine, 
daughter of Peter and Elizabeth (Lefferts) Clopper. The notice of his death in 
Brooklyn, on February 1, 1805, referred to him as Major John Covenhoven. The 
identity of the subject of the portrait is attributed on the basis of all available records, 
published and unpublished, of the Covenhoven family, by exclusion of all other John 
Covenhovens. The portrait is still owned by the Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, 
Vermont. See New York County Will Books, Liber 31, 180; New York County Deed 
Books, Surrogate's Office, Liber 23, 232, Liber 44, 312, Liber 45, 469, and Liber 59, 
272; "Dutch Church Marriages," 241; Minutes of the Common Council, I, 56, 157, 182, 
204, and VI, 146, 223, 226; New York Weekly Museum, February 2, 1805 (obituary); 
New York Genealogical and Biographical Society Record, LXX, 274, and LXXXII, 221 ; 
Bradley Smith, assistant to the director, Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, Vermont, to 
Helen Burr Smith, August 24, 1960, and September 6, 1960, letters in possession of 
H. B. Smith. 

59 Hamilton, "Portrait of Sir John Johnson," 449. Mrs. Held's drawing of the 
monogram was made from the Prime portrait. 

John Mare 31 

No later portraits by John Mare have been found. After 1777 he 
simply disappeared from New York records. Sometime between 1785 
and 1795 he acquired Lot 39, adjoining his old lot on the north, 60 
but the deed for that was not recorded. Neither was the deed by 
which, before the spring of 1795, he conveyed Lot 38 to William 
Williams, 61 who for obvious reasons has always been assumed to be 
his nephew, Mary (Mare) Williams' son. It is difficult to understand 
why Mare should have purchased the property adjoining his own 
except with the intention of returning to New York City to live. And 
where was he living in the meantime? The mercantile firm of E. 
Dutith & Co. in Philadelphia had an account with a John Mare in 
1786 and 1790, 62 but its books gave no clue as to where he was or 
what he was doing. A search of legal records in Albany and New 
York, and even in Boston and Philadelphia failed to disclose any more 
information, not even the probate of a will or the issuing of letters 
of administration on his estate. 63 

Additional information did emerge, however, about the William 
Williams who owned Lot 38 in 1795. It strengthened the probability 
that he was indeed Mary (Mare) Williams' son and John Mare's 
nephew, but did not quite prove the fact. This William Williams was 
also an artist, born in New York on November 17, 1759, according to 
the entry in his daughter's Bible, which did not give the names of his 
parents. 64 In 1779 the young man opened his studio in New York 

60 Obadiah Wells, who owned Lot 39 in the lifetime of John Mare, Sr., sold it to 
Frederick Jay, November 2, 1784. See Land Conveyances, Liber 51, in the Surrogate's 
Office, New York City. Two deeds of Peter Stuyvesant and wife Margaret, both dated 
March 27, 1795, refer to John Mare as "now or formerly" the owner of Lot 39. See 
Land Conveyances, Liber 51, 144, 146. 

61 This transaction probably occurred before Williams' marriage in 1792 and his 
subsequent departure from the city. Letters of administration on the estate of Archi- 
bald Gatfield, granted January 15, 1791, show that his Lot 37 bounded John Mare's 
Lot 38 on the south (see NYHS Coll. 1905, 355). The Stuyvesant deed to James Howie 
describes Lot 38 as "now or lately belonging to William Williams." See Land Con- 
veyances, Liber 51, 146. 

63 Photostat in Helen Burr Smith's possession of the Dutith manuscript account, 
owned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. See also William Henry Egle (ed.), 
Pennsylvania Archives, Third Series (Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 30 volumes 
and supplement, 1894), XI, 652, 687, XVI, 723, and XXII, 692; and Philadelphia City 
Directory, 1791. 

83 NYHS Coll. 1898-1908, indexes; George Loesch, clerk of the Surrogate's Court 
of the County of New York, to George C. Groce, December 10, 1948; John Ludden, 
clerk of the New York Court of Appeals, to George C. Groce, December 7, 1948; 
Donald L. Lynch, Albany County clerk, to George C. Groce, December 1, 1948; and 
research by Helen Burr Smith in the Surrogate's Court records, New York City, and 
in repositories of legal records in Philadelphia and Boston. Original letters in H. B. 
Smith's possession. 

84 Williams, William Joseph Williams, contains a transcript of this entire Bible 
record on unnumbered pages inserted between 34 and 37. 

32 The North Carolina Historical Review 

and inserted his advertisement in the Royal Gazette for March 6: 

William Williams, Portrait Painter, Acquaints the Ladies and Gentle- 
men, that he has taken a room, at Mr. Greswold's, No. 163, Queen Street, 
next door to Mr. Joseph Totten's, where he carries on the business of 
Portrait Painting in all its branches, on the most reasonable terms. 65 

One of the branches was teaching, for which his terms may have 
been more reasonable than his methods. William Dunlap, whom he 
took as a pupil in 1781 or 1782, reported that Williams was only his 
father's third choice as an instructor for him, an estimate unfortunately 

I went to his rooms in the suburbs, now Mott Street, and he placed a 
drawing book before me, such as I had possessed for years : after a few 
visits the teacher was not to be found. I examined his portraits — tried his 
crayons, and soon procuring a set ... commenced portrait painter in the 
year 1782. 66 

In 1792 William Williams was married in New York City 67 and left 
it for fifteen years. He worked in Virginia (1792-1793) and in Phila- 
delphia (1793-1797), where he painted the portrait of George Wash- 
ington in Masonic regalia requested by Alexandria-Washington Lodge 
No. 22, in Alexandria, Virginia. 68 Later he lived in South Carolina 
(1798-1804), where he was married for the second and third times, 
and in New Bern ( 1804-1807 ). 69 For the next ten years he was in 
New York, 70 but in 1817 he returned to New Bern, where he spent 
the last six years of his life. 71 In 1821, two years before his death, he 
was converted to the Roman Catholic church and at confirmation 
took the name Joseph, 72 which is usually inserted in parentheses be- 
tween his Christian name and his surname. A number of his signed 

65 Kelby, American Artists, 15. 

68 Bayley and Goodspeed, Arts of Design, I, 295-296. 

67 On July 5, 1792, William Williams and Jane Smalwood were married by the 
Reverend John H. Livingston at the Dutch Reformed Church, 113 Fulton Street, New 
York City. "Dutch Church Marriages," I, 267. 

68 Philadelphia City Directory, 1797, 196, which lists him as "Limner"; Gertrude S. 
Carraway, Crown of Life: History of Christ Church, New Bern, N. C, 17 15-19 UO 
(New Bern: Owen G. Dunn, 1940), 105-106, hereinafter cited as Carraway, Crown of 
Life; Williams, William Joseph Williams, passim. 

69 Williams, William Joseph Williams, passim. 

70 Long worth's New York Almanac, 1809, 384, which lists him as "portrait painter"; 
baptismal records of Trinity Church, New York City; and Williams, William Joseph 
Williams, passim. 

71 Carraway, Crown of Life, 105-106, 156; Williams, William Joseph Williams, 156. 

72 Williams, William Joseph Williams, 24. This quotes the records of St. Paul's 
Roman Catholic Church, New Bern. 

John Mare 33 

portraits have survived, 73 as have several miniatures attributed to him. 
It is tantalizing to consider that the deed for the conveyance of Lot 
38 from Mare to Williams might have revealed not only the relation- 
ship between the two men but also Mare's whereabouts at that un- 
known date between 1785 and 1795. 

John Mare's total work, known or attributed with some certainty, 
consists of twelve paintings: the portraits of Robert Gilbert Livings- 
ton and Henry Lloyd, copied from Wollaston originals not yet located; 
the vanished portrait of King George III; the portraits of William 
Torrey, Gerard Beekman, and the gentleman of the Werden-Wilcocks 
family, all attributed to him on grounds of style and provenance; and 
the portraits of John Keteltas, John Torrey, Sir John Johnson, John 
Covenhoven, Dr. Benjamin Young Prime, and the unknown young 
man, all signed and dated, all unquestionably authentic. Each one 
of these subjects without exception was posed three-quarters front. 
Six of them (eight, counting the copies) had a hand thrust into the 
waistcoat. Details such as buttons, braid, ruffles, decorations, and the 
famous fly on John Keteltas' cuff, were painted with meticulous care. 
Mare's likenesses have been described as "stiff" and "hard," 74 with the 
faces painted in high color against a dark background. One critic who 
considered Mare a better painter than some of his contemporaries- 
modest praise, to say the least— said that "at the same time there is a 
certain clumsiness in all his work, a certain amateurishness. Yet the 
faces are fairly well painted." 75 They are indeed. No matter how 
dependent he was on a set formula for composition, he painted faces 
with individuality. It is honest work, straightforward, "sturdy and 
careful," 76 unstained by flattery. These are portraits of real persons 
and irrefutable proof of his professional success. Yet John Mare 
apparently stopped painting at the age of thirty-five and dropped 
completely out of his surroundings and the normal development of his 

73 The North Carolina Portrait Index, 1700-1860 (Chapel Hill: University of North 
Carolina Press, 1963), 179, 262, 263, shows examples of his work and lists other 
portraits attributed to him and owned within the state. 

74 Sawitsky lecture, January 27, 1942. 

75 Sawitsky lecture, January 27, 1942. 

78 Oliver W. Larkin, Art and Life in America (New York: Rinehart & Co., 1949), 
49-50, 61. 

34 The North Carolina Historical Review 


There were more than a hundred names on Dr. Samuel Dickinson's 
list of men in Chowan County who had taken the oath of allegiance 
to the new state of North Carolina by June 23, 1778. Among those he 
certified were Hugh Williamson, later a signer of the Constitution; 
James Iredell, later an associate justice of the new Supreme Court of 
the United States; the members of the Committee of Safety and most 
of the other local patriots whose names are yet remembered; and one 
who has been forgotten, John Mare, 77 a newcomer to the town of 
Edenton but already a friend of the most influential men of the com- 
munity. The political career which lay ahead of him was based on such 
associations and on his loyalty to the cause of the Revolution and the 
young nation. 

That loyalty was tested more than once. When the British row galley 
"General Arnold" slipped into Albemarle Sound and "plundered and 
burnt" along the sound and the Chowan River early in June, 1781, 78 
the citizens of Edenton pledged £75,500 toward the expenses of an 
expedition to destroy it. Well-to-do businessmen and farmers like 
William Boyd and William Bennett and a well-to-do physician like 
Dr. Dickinson were in a better position to pledge £ 1,500, as they did, 
than John Mare to pledge £ 1,000. 79 Mare also supplied to the North 
Carolina troops in the Continental Line almost a hundred yards of 
linen valued at £30 9s. 2d., thread valued at £ 14 lis., 4d., and "1 Chest 
to pack goods in," valued at £ 1 6s. Od. 80 This transaction was supposed 
to be a sale, the bill to be paid by the state; but it might as well have 
been an outright contribution, considering the fact that the state took 
more than five years to think about settling the debt. These were fair- 
ly generous contributions from a man who had already suffered a 
severe financial loss as a direct result of the war— in October, 1780, the 
"Fair American" owned by William Littlejohn, William Bennett, 

"J. R. B. Hathaway (ed.), North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register, II 
(April, 1901), 206, hereinafter cited as Hathaway, Historical and Genealogical 

78 Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, 
and Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by 
Stephen B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records'], 1895-1914), XVII, 
952-953, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records. 

79 "List of Subscribers on the Expedition against the Row Galley Gen. 1 Arnold," 
loose paper in the Cupola House Collection, Edenton, hereinafter cited as Cupola 
House Collection. No record has been found that Mare was ever in the Continental 
army or navy. 

80 Clark, State Records, XVI, 485. 

John Mare 35 

Thomas Walker, John Mare, and George and William Wynn, had 
been captured by the British. 81 

Chowan County tax lists 82 disclose the details of John Mare's early 
business career, showing his financial status on April 1 of each year. 
In 1779 his property, consisting of cash, notes, and one horse, was 
valued at £206 5s. 0d.; the fact that notes were included suggests that 
he might have gone into business by himself. A year later he was a 
partner in the firm of Mare & Cooley, with cash assets of £3,000, a 
one-sixteenth interest in the schooner "Ostrich," which was valued 
at £5,600, and dry goods on hand to the value of £800. A surprising 
amount of the stock in trade, besides what belonged to the firm, was 
Mare's personal property, to the value of £525. In addition, he had 
cash assets of £1,700, "debts due" amounting to £2,500, and "1 2 
Year old Filly" valued at £140. 83 By the spring of 1781 he may have 
withdrawn from the partnership, known by then as Samuel Cooley & 
Co., which had cash assets valued at £6,653 and other assets valued 
at £2,394, while Mare himself had cash assets of £7,000 and other 
assets valued at £3,452. In 1782 his stock in trade was listed at 
£656 6s. 4d. and in 1783 at £210. The tax lists thereafter do not show 
any details of business firms, but do show when Mare began to em- 
ploy a clerk who was part of his household. In 1784 his autograph list- 
ing shows "1 poll tax (M. r Jer. h Gallop)"; in 1789 another autograph 
listing shows "1 pole Jeremiah Gallop." In 1786 he listed one free poll, 
in 1787 two, in 1788 one. In 1790 Jeremiah Gallop became a taxable 
himself, and Mare took his first and only apprentice, Ichabod Samp- 
son, an eighteen-year-old free mulatto, who was bound to him to 
learn the "art & Mistery of a Seaman." 84 This boy, the "other free 
person" listed in Mare's household in the 1790 census, 85 appeared on 

81 According to papers taken from the "Fair American," she was owned by George 
and William Wynn of Hertford County, and by William Bennett, William Littlejohn, 
Thomas Walker, and John Mare of Edenton. She was reported en route from Edenton 
to Bordeaux with a cargo of 160 hogsheads of tobacco, deerskins, snakeroot, and 
other items. Her letter of marque described her as an 18-gun ship with a crew of 
100 men. Prize Papers, Admiralty 32/330/1, British Public Record Office. This infor- 
mation was supplied to the authors by Thomas C. Parramore. 

83 Chowan County Tax Lists, State Archives, Raleigh, hereinafter cited as Chowan 
Tax Lists. Between 1778 and 1809, the lists for 1792, 1796, 1799, and 1801 are missing. 

83 The tax list for 1780 makes it clear that Mare had acquired his interest in the 
"Fair American" between April 1, 1780, and the date of its loss. 

84 Minutes of the Chowan County Court of Common Pleas and Quarter Sessions, 
March, 1788-September, 1791, State Archives, hereinafter cited as Chowan Court 
Minutes. Except in the earlier volumes, these minutes have no page numbers, and 
it is therefore necessary to refer to the term of court, in this case March Term, 1790. 
In some of the earlier volumes, the leaves rather than the pages are numbered; for 
the sake of convenience, the letters A and B will indicate the right-hand and left-hand 
pages respectively. 

85 Clark, State Records, XXVI, 397. 

36 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the tax lists in 1793 and 1794. After that his apprenticeship ended. 
The only definite information about Mare's business came from the 
records of the Port of Roanoke, 86 which show the duty he paid on im- 
ports brought in, always by the sloop "Mary," nearly all of it from 
the West Indies-$78.02 in 1790, $478.79 in 1791, $260.81 in 1792, 
and $170.15 in 1793. 87 His store, which he did not own, was the "corner 
store in King Street," 88 at the north end of the row of stores called 
Cheapside, directly south of Joseph Hewes' old store. 

It took the young state of North Carolina several years to decide 
exactly how property should be listed for taxes. In 1782 and 1783, 
for instance, slaves were listed by age: those under seven and over 
fifty at the lowest valuation, those from seven to sixteen and from 
forty to fifty in a middle group, and those from sixteen to forty at the 
highest valuation. From 1784 on, they were listed only if their ages 
were between twelve and fifty. In 1782 John Mare listed one slave in 
the second group and one in the third; in 1783, one in each of the 
first two groups and four in the third. In 1784 he listed four, in 1785 
eight; in 1788 nine; in 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, and 1791 eight. Twenty- 
two were listed in the 1790 census; of those, fourteen were under 
twelve or over fifty. 89 

On October 21, 1782, John Mare made his first purchase of real 
estate in Edenton when he paid Dominick Pembrune 750 Spanish 
milled dollars for a house on West Church Street (New Plan Lot 
55 ). 90 This was next door to his friend William Littlejohn, whose lot 
adjoined St. Paul's churchyard on the other side. In 1787 Mare paid 
£250 specie for two lots on East Gale Street (Old Plan Lots 119-120), 
one "improved" by a log cabin measuring twenty by fifteen feet and 
the other unimproved. These lots, the escheated property of Thomas 
Wright, 91 Mare listed for taxes in the summer of 1787 as being his 
property by April 1, but he did not succeed in getting his deed from 
Governor Richard Caswell until November 12. Two months before 
that, he had bought the lot just west of his home ( New Plan Lot 56 ) 

88 Records of the Port of Edenton, Southern Historical Collection, University of 
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1790-1795, 5, 19, 47, 65, 76, 91, 106, 126, 141, 152. 

87 Custom duty was imposed in pounds, shillings, and pence and paid in dollars. For 
a discussion of the currency situation in the state during this period, see Mattie Erma 
Parker, Money Problems of Early Tar Heels (Raleigh: State Department of Archives 
and History, fifth printing, I960), 10-13. 

88 State Gazette of North Carolina (Edenton), January 31, 1794. 

89 Chowan Tax Lists, 1782 through 1791. 

60 Chowan County Deed Books, Office of Register of Deeds, Chowan County Court- 
house, Edenton, Deed Book R-2, 358, hereinafter cited as Chowan Deed Book. 
91 Chowan Deed Book T-l, 207, 208. 

John Mare 37 

for £390; 92 apparently this was an investment in property for rental 
purposes only, 93 though the house must have been a good deal hand- 
somer than his own. 94 On January 18, 1789, he made his final purchase, 
for £600 North Carolina currency, of a lot directly across Broad 
Street from Mrs. Thomas Barker's home (the middle third, approxi- 
mately, of New Plan Lots 25-26-27-28 ) . 95 This, too, must have been 
an investment in rental property, for he continued to occupy the house 
on Church Street. 96 

By the spring of 1784 he had begun to acquire land in other coun- 
ties. He bought first 425 acres in Tyrrell County, 97 then 200 acres in 
"Bartie" County, 98 200 acres, 99 575 acres, 100 and finally 75 acres, 101 all 
in Tyrrell, so that by the spring of 1788 he owned 1,475 acres. 

John Mare was in his mid-forties and Mrs. Marion (Boyd) Wells 
in her early thirties when they were married in 1784. Their marriage 
bond has not been found, but the date can be approximated with ac- 
curacy. Marion Boyd was a daughter of William Boyd and his first 
wife, Mary Speight, 102 and a granddaughter of the Reverend John 
Boyd, 103 a Scottish physician who had been North Carolina's first 
candidate for Holy Orders and rector of North- West Parish, Bertie 
County, from 1732 to 1738. 104 Marion was still a minor when her 
father gave his consent to her marriage to Dr. George Wells, February 
3, 1767. 105 Nothing is known of Dr. Wells except from his will and the 
will of his father-in-law; his name appeared only once in court re- 

92 Chowan Deed Book T-l, 151. 

63 Chowan Deed Books B-2, 25, and W-l, 512. 

94 When the two lots were sold at the same time in 1801, the Mare lot brought less 
than a fifth as much as the adjoining lot. Chowan Deed Book R-2, 525. Another in- 
dication that the Mares were satisfied with a rather simple way of life is the fact 
that they never had a carriage; the only vehicle shown in the Chowan tax lists, from 
1785 through 1791, is a "Singal Riding Chair," technically two wheels. 

85 Chowan Deed Book T-l, 308. 

"Chowan Deed Book B-2, 25. 

97 Chowan Tax List, 1784. 

98 Chowan Tax List, 1785. 

99 Chowan Tax List, 1786. 

100 Chowan Tax List, 1787. 

101 Chowan Tax List, 1788. 

103 Hathaway, Historical and Genealogical Register, II (April, 1901), 271; Chowan 
Court Minutes, 1755-1761, 531B. 

103 Hathaway, Historical and Genealogical Register, I (January, 1901), 29; Chowan 
Court Minutes, 1730-1734 and 1740-1748 [all in one volume], 123A, 131B; Chowan 
Deed Book 0-1, 101. 

104 Joseph Blount Cheshire, Jr., "The Church in the Province of North Carolina," 
Sketches of Church History in North Carolina, edited by J. B. Cheshire, Jr. (Wil- 
mington: W. L. DeRosset, Jr., 1892), 67, hereinafter cited as Cheshire, "The Church 
in North Carolina"; William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial Records of North 
Carolina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), III, 339, here- 
inafter cited as Saunders, Colonial Records. 

105 Chowan County Marriage Bonds, State Archives, typed by the Genealogical So- 
ciety of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1943, 169, hereinafter cited as Chowan Marriage Bonds. 

38 The North Carolina Historical Review 

cords before his will was proved, 106 and he owned no property in 
Chowan County. His will, written three months after his marriage, 
left his wife everything except his "silver smitted sword" and his 
tomahawk, which were to go to his brother Richard, and his "medi- 
cinal" books or "whatever Books thats belonging to me that treats 
of Surgery or medicine," which were to go to his younger half brother 
Thomas. 107 It was an unfortunate marriage. Whether because of mili- 
tary service, financial profit elsewhere, restlessness, or incompatibility, 
Dr. Wells was evidently away most of the time. 108 As for his wife, the 
only detail known of her personal history is that she and her sister 
Lydia (Mrs. William Bennett) signed the resolutions of the Edenton 
Tea Party. Marion s father made careful provision for her in his will, 
stipulating that payments to her should not be "Subject to the Inte- 
ference, Intermedling order or Control" of her husband, 109 providing a 
special fund of <£ 10 proclamation per year for her "during the absence 
of her husband Geo Wells and While they have no Connection," 110 
and appointing four trustees of unimpeachable integrity to look after 
her share of his estate: the future governor of North Carolina, Samuel 
Johnston; the future justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
James Iredell; the rector of St. Paul's Church, the Reverend Daniel 
Earl; and his own son-in-law and business partner, William Bennett. 111 
There is no suggestion that Marion was incapable of managing her 
estate; on the contrary, it was to be paid to her at once if she outlived 
her husband. 112 If he outlived her, it was to go to her sister Lydia's 
children. 113 No matter what happened, Dr. Wells was not to get 
his fingers on one penny of her property. By the time William 
Boyd died in the fall of 1784, 114 Dr. Wells was dead and Marion 
safely married to John Mare. She must have been married very 
soon after George Wells' death, or soon after the news of it 

106 An eleven-year-old girl was bound to him on March 20, 1770; on September 18, 
1770, she was bound to someone else. No explanation is given for the sudden termina- 
tion of a bond which would normally have lasted until the girl was eighteen years old. 
See Chowan Court Minutes, April, 1766-March, 1772, 513, 567. 

107 Chowan County Will Books, Office of Clerk of Court, Chowan County Courthouse, 
Edenton, Will Book A, 172, hereinafter cited as Chowan Will Books. 

108 Chowan Will Book B, 122. William Boyd's first will, dated February 18, 1775, 
indicates a separation. 

109 Chowan Will Book B, 139. 

110 Chowan Will Book B, 122. 

111 Chowan Will Book B, 122, 139. 
1U Chowan Will Book B, 122, 139. 

113 Chowan Will Book B, 122, 139. 

114 Chowan Court Minutes, 1780-1785, December Term, 1784. William Bennett quali- 
fied as administrator of William Boyd's estate, December 29, 1784, before Boyd's wills 
had been found. He proceeded to settle the estate quite promptly but had to qualify 
as executor anyway April 3, 1785, after the wills were found. 

John Mare 39 

arrived. According to law, wills were supposed to be proved within 
six months of a death, and Dr. Wells' was proved at September Term 
of court, 1784; 115 this should indicate that he was living as late as March 
of that year. But since William Boyd was named as administrator, to 
lighten Marion's responsibility as executrix, and since Boyd's own wills 
(he left two) did not turn up for some months after his death, it is 
possible that Dr. Wells' was also delayed in being proved. At any rate, 
Marion evidently married John Mare in the spring or early summer 
of 1784. Their first child, Mary A. Mare, was born in February, 
1785, 116 and their second, Elizabeth Anne, before 1790. 117 

The sort of family John Mare married into is another indication of 
his standing in the community. William Boyd, orphaned in childhood, 
had grown up in the home of his stepfather Joseph Herron, 118 sea 
captain turned sheriff. 119 He was appointed a justice of the peace as 
early as 1760 120 and served several times on the grand jury for the 
infrequent sessions of the superior court. 121 He represented Chowan 
County in the General Assembly repeatedly, from the fall of 1762 122 
through the fall of 1779. 123 He was one of the few who had the 
courage to protest against the Confiscation Act as injurious to many 
innocent people. 124 He was executor of many wills, administrator of 
many estates, guardian of several children. 125 As the son of a mis- 
sionary for the Society for the Propagation- of the Gospel, 126 he was 
greatly concerned about the parish in which he lived. He was first 
elected to the vestry of St. Paul's Church, Edenton, in 1752, 127 for 
the usual two-year term, and was reelected in 1772 for a term pro- 
longed indefinitely. He became a warden in 1774 and was still 

115 Chowan Court Minutes, 1780-1785, September Term, .1784. 

118 She was "51 years 9 mos" old when she died in November, 1836, according to her 
tombstone in St. Paul's churchyard, Edenton. 

117 The 1790 census shows three free white females in John Mare's household. Clark, 
State Records, XXVI, 397. 

118 Chowan Marriage Bonds, 72; Chowan Court Minutes, 1730-1734 and 1740-1748 
[one volume] 123A, 131B; Chowan Court Minutes, 1749-1755, 279A. 

119 Chowan Court Minutes, 1730-1734 and 1740-1748, 157A; Chowan Court Minutes, 
1749-1755, 253B, 307B; Chowan Deed Book E-l, 277; Chowan Will Book A, 50. 

120 Chowan Court Minutes, 1755-1761, 510A. 

121 For example, Chowan Court Minutes, 1755-1761, 542A; Chowan Court Minutes, 
April, 1766-March, 1772, 328. 

122 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 856, 893, 899, 923, 935. 

123 Clark, State Records, XIII, 740, 784, 786, 790-791, 812, 823, 831, 845, 913, 916, 
925, 935, 966, 975, 979-980, 982-983, 988, 990, 1000. 

124 Clark, State Records, XIII, 991-992. 

125 For example, Chowan Court Minutes, 1755-1761, 406B; Chowan Court Minutes, 
April, 1766-March, 1772, 374, 496, 524; Chowan Will Books A, 172, and B, 126. 

126 Cheshire, "The Church in North Carolina," 67. 

127 Vestry Minutes, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Edenton, hereinafter cited as 
Vestry Minutes. Boyd served first from August 24, 1752, to April 15, 1754, and from 
April 1, 1772, until the minutes ended in 1779. He served as warden from May 18, 
1774, to May 2, 1778, when the vestry became the Overseers of the Poor. 

40 The North Carolina Historical Review 

serving in this office in 1778, when the vestry was suddenly trans- 
formed into the Overseers of the Poor and the minutes stopped. The 
other warden was his son-in-law William Bennett, elected to the 
vestry in the spring of 1776 128 and appointed warden about two 
months later. These two and Boyd's nephew, Thomas Benbury, were 
three of the vestrymen who signed the Test, demanding justice for 
the colonies because they were loyal subjects of the King. 129 

John Mare shared this interest in the Anglican church. When the 
Reverend Charles Pettigrew was called to be rector of St. Paul's, on 
November 1, 1781, Mare's name was thirteenth on a long list of 
subscribers, with a pledge of £5 per year toward the rector's salary. 130 
It is impossible to discover how active a part John Mare may have 
taken in parish affairs because there are no vestry minutes for the 
years that he lived in Edenton. The loose papers relating to the repair 
of the church after his death contain several subscription lists which 
bear the names of his family connections. 131 It is therefore a safe 
guess that his family was among the small group who maintained 
its loyalty through very trying times in the history of the parish 
and, indeed, of the Episcopal church. Since he owned land only in 
the town, and St. Paul's churchyard was then the town cemetery, 
John Mare and his wife were probably buried there, as his daughters 
were later. 

Like many other members of St. Paul's, Mare was an active Mason. 
A visitor to Unanimity Lodge in Edenton on April 14, 1776, and 
January 27 and 28, 1777, 132 he was admitted to membership on 
April 16, 1778, 133 and served in swift succession as junior warden 
pro tern on August 13, treasurer pro tern on September 1, and senior 

138 Vestry Minutes. Bennett served on the vestry from April 8, 1776, until the 
minutes ended, and as warden from June 19, 1776, to May 2, 1778. 

129 The Test was a statement signed by nine of the vestrymen and two former 
vestrymen of St. Paul's Church, professing at once their allegiance to the King 
and to the Continental and Provincial Congresses. Vestry Minutes, June 19, 1776. 

130 Loose paper now bound into the restored Vestry Minutes. 

131 Loose papers in possession of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Edenton, hereinafter 
cited as 1806-1809 Repairs, St. Paul's Church. 

132 Records of Unanimity Lodge ; William P. Goodwin to Charles A. Harris, February 
1, 1961, copy in possession of H. B. Smith, hereinafter cited as Goodwin to Harris, 
February 1, 1961. Goodwin has found the oldest records in great disorder, with 
old record books fallen apart and some minutes on loose sheets apparently never 
copied into the record books at all. As he succeeds in restoring order to the jumbled 
papers, more information about John Mare may come to light. 

133 Records of Unanimity Lodge; Goodwin to Harris, February 1, 1961; Edward 
W. Spires, "Colonial History of Unanimity Lodge No. 7 A. F. & A. M.," address 
delivered on the one hundred fifty-fifth anniversary of its organization, November 8, 
1930, unnumbered 5, mimeographed copy in possession of E. V. Moore, hereinafter 
cited as Spires, "Colonial History of Unanimity Lodge." 

John Mare 41 

warden pro tern on September 4. Next year he became treasurer on 
January 26; he served as senior warden pro tern on March 25, and as 
junior warden pro tern on August 17; and he was elected senior 
warden on December 20 and master on December 27, presiding 
over seventeen communications of the lodge. From then until Decem- 
ber 27, 1782, he served as master. 134 The weight of his influence may 
be estimated from the fact that Unanimity Lodge failed when he 
declined to continue serving as master 135 and that it was he who 
revived it in 1787, when on April 2 he was again installed as master. 
He presided over all the meetings from September 4, 1787, to June 
5, 1788, 136 and presumably continued active most of the time until 
the lodge "became dormant in November, 1799," 137 its last meeting 
occurring only five months after Mare's last public appearance. 

In June, 1787, John Mare notified members of Unanimity Lodge 
that he would be unable, for personal reasons, to represent them at a 
proposed convention to elect a grand master for the state. 138 The 
convention had to be delayed six months, 139 and he was one of the 
two Edenton delegates (Stephen Cabarrus was the other) when it 
finally met in Tarboro in December. He presided over the convention, 
held for the purpose of reviving the lodge, 140 "is credited with hav- 
ing drafted the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina" 141 
and on December 12 delivered an impressive charge to its new 
officers. 142 His final exhortation reflects the satisfaction he felt: 

As we have gone through the important business for which we met 
together, allow me in the gladness of my heart to express the gratitude I 
owe you in having the honour to sit in this exalted chair; and as I am 
about to leave it to express the happiness I feel at this time in seeing the 
great work for which we convened finished; I hope the result of it will 
give stability to the Society, which will reflect honour and dignity upon 
the craft. 

134 Records of Unanimity Lodge; Goodwin to Harris, February 1, 1961. 
135 Records of Unanimity Lodge; Goodwin to Harris, February 1, 1961. 

136 Records of Unanimity Lodge. 

137 Marshall DeLancey Haywood, The Beginnings of Freemasonry in North Carolina 
and Tennessee (Raleigh: Weaver & Lynch, 1906), 11, hereinafter cited as Haywood, 

138 Records of Unanimity Lodge. 

139 Haywood, Freemasonry, 19. 

140 Haywood, Freemasonry, 19 ; Spires, "Colonial History of Unanimity Lodge," un- 
numbered 5-6; R. D. W. Connor, North Carolina: Rebuilding an Ancient Common- 
wealth, 1584-1925 (Chicago: American Historical Society, Inc., 4 volumes, 1929), I, 
373, refers to "the most important social institution in the state, the Grand Lodge of 
the Masonic Order [which] had been extinct since 1776." 

141 Spires, "Colonial History of Unanimity Lodge," unnumbered 6. 

142 Haywood, Freemasonry, 20. 

42 The North Carolina Historical Review 

We may flatter ourselves, as we have laid the foundation and placed 
such exalted characters at our head, that Free Masonry will flourish 
throughout this State. I hope it will not be taken amiss if I charge you 
on this occasion, that you will observe a strict attention to the rules and 
Constitution of Masonry in your respective Lodges, that will cement us 
all in one band of Brotherly Love. 

I am now taking leave of you, permit me to implore the world's Great 
Architect, who is our Supreme Grand Master, to help you with all those 
gifts of understanding, and all those calm dispositions of heart, which will 
make you Ornaments to your friends and happy in yourselves. 143 

A resolution was promptly passed, thanking him as president "for 
the able and assiduous manner with which he hath discharged the 
duties of that office." 144 He was soon to serve, though perhaps briefly, 
as an officer of the grand lodge; the minutes of June 24, 1788, list 
him as junior grand warden. 145 He was fourth on the list of its mem- 
bers on December 16, 1797, 146 and was still a member the two follow- 
ing years. 

It was not merely John Mare's enthusiasm for Masonry which led 
to his presiding at the reorganization of the grand lodge. The 
ability and assiduity commended in the resolution of thanks had 
been observed for years by men who were in a position to recognize 
and value such qualities. Perhaps the most interesting facet of Mare's 
life was his political career. From April, 1783, to July, 1786, he was 
postmaster of Edenton. 148 In March, 1785, he was appointed for the 
first time to the grand jury. 149 From June 8, 1786, to March 26, 1788, 
he was coroner for Chowan County. 150 By the end of 1787 he was a 
justice of the peace, 151 a very conscientious one, presiding during 

143 "Early Minutes of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina," Nocalore, Being the 
Transactions of the North Carolina Lodge of Research No. 666, A. F. & A. M. (Monroe 
[?], 11 volumes, 1931-1941), VII, 147, hereinafter cited as "Early Minutes of the 
Grand Lodge." 

144 "Early Minutes of the Grand Lodge," VII, 147. 

145 Charles A. Harris to Wendell K. Walker, February 8. 1961, copy in possession 
of H. B. Smith, hereinafter cited as Harris to Walker, February 8, 1961. It was 
Harris' opinion that Mare was probably substituting for the elected junior grand 
warden for this one meeting. 

146 Walker to Harris, January 23, 1961. 

147 Walker to Harris, January 23, 1961. 

148 John Mare's summary report as postmaster, April 5, 1783, to July 26, 1786, 
National Archives, Washington, D.C., photostat copy in possession of E. V. Moore. 
This service has been confirmed by F. Kent Loomis, Captain, U.S.N. (Ret.), assis- 
tant director of naval history, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., April 
1, 1966, letter in possession of E. V. Moore. 

149 Chowan Court Minutes, 1780-1785. 

150 Chowan Court Minutes, September, 1785-September, 1786; Chowan Court Min- 
utes, March, 1788-September, 1791. 

151 Chowan Court Minutes, December, 1786-December, 1787, and June, 1795-March 
1796 [one volume]. The minutes for this period were badly kept, those for June, 
1795, for instance, appearing in the volume just cited and in the volumes covering 
December, 1791, through June 10, 1795, and also June 10, 1795, through June, 1798. 

John Mare 


$ £w m : 

/ TYA, 


.,..>■• . 


\t? •:»■> !•■««» --.>.■■+'{ 


At the top is a photograph made by Einars J. Mengis of John Mare's signature as 
it appears on the reverse side of the portrait of John Covenhoven, owned by the 
Shelburne Museum, Inc. Below is a copy of the listing of taxable property as of "April 
the 1 st . . 1786." filed by "myself J. Mare. July 27 8t . . 1786." in Chowan County. This 
copy was made by the Division of Archives and Manuscripts, State Department of 
Archives and History, where the original is on file. These samples were submitted to 
James R. Durham, document examiner, State Bureau of Investigation, for an opinion 
as to whether the handwriting appeared to be that of the same man. Although seriously 
handicapped in making an analysis because of the brief amount of writing available 
for comparison, Mr. Durham stated that "these signatures reflected a general con- 
sistency within the normal range of expected handwriting variations . . ." and that 
"it is likely that both signatures were written by the same person. . . ." Letter Octo- 
ber 28, 1966, on file in the office of the editor, North Carolina Historical Review. 

44 The North Carolina Historical Review 

three out of every four sessions of the Court of Common Pleas and 
Quarter Sessions for twelve busy years. As a justice he took his turn 
at listing the taxables of his district (the town of Edenton), in 1788, 
1792, and 1796. 152 In 1793 he was appointed to assess the value of 
Edenton property for taxation. 153 He was repeatedly assigned to 
financial committees to audit the accounts of the sheriffs, of the 
executors and administrators of estates, and of the guardians of 
children. 154 His last signature as an official appears at the end of the 
minutes for the December term of court, 1798, 155 though that was 
not the last time he presided. He found time to serve the town of 
Edenton as well. By the end of 1786 he was its treasurer, 156 and 
records of 1790, 1791, and 1792 refer to him again in this capacity, 
without, however, making it clear whether he had continued in office 
all that time. 157 He was certainly one of the town commissioners in 
1789. 158 

Those citizens of the county who were personally involved in 
state and national politics had more than sufficient opportunities to 
judge John Mare's abilities. Most of them were Federalists, eager to 
have North Carolina ratify the Constitution. In November, 1787, a 
grand jury for the Edenton district presented to the Superior Court 
an appeal (believed to have been written by James Iredell) for 
prompt action on the matter; the foreman and spokesman was 
William Bennett, 159 Marion Mare's brother-in-law. A month later, 
addressing the new Grand Lodge of North Carolina, John Mare 
stressed the importance of personal integrity and responsibility in high 
political office. The grand master listening was Samuel Johnston, 

152 Chowan Court Minutes, March, 1788-September, 1791, June Term, 1788; Chowan 
Court Minutes, December, 1791-June, 1795, June Term, 1792; Chowan Court Minutes, 
June, 1795-June, 1798, June and September Terms, 1796. 

153 Chowan Court Minutes, December, 1791-June, 1795, December Term, 1793. 

154 Chowan Court Minutes, March, 1788-September, 1791, June Term, 1790, and 
June Term, 1791; Chowan Court Minutes, December, 1791-June, 1795, December 
Term, 1791, June Term, 1792, March Term, 1793, June Term, 1794, and March Term, 
1795; Chowan Court Minutes, December, 1786-December, 1787, and June, 1795- 
March, 1796, September Term, 1795. 

165 Chowan Court Minutes, September, 1798-December, 1801. 

158 John Mare's account of what he had spent as treasurer, and Joseph Blount's 
account of the use of town taxes, in 1786, are in the Cupola House Collection. 

157 Cupola House Collection. Orders dated September 16, 1790, September 2, 1791, 
and December 23, 1791; receipts dated December 29, 1791, January 18, 1792, and 
March, 1792; Mare's autograph statement of the commissioners' account with him 
as "their Treasur," dated April 2, 1792; and two orders dated April 2, 1792, one of 
them to "John Mare Esqu Treasurer of Town of Edenton." 

158 Certificate dated May 15, 1789, stating that Mare had taken oath as a com- 
missioner is in the Cupola House Collection. 

150 Griffith J. McRee (ed.), Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, One of the 
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: D. Apple- 
ton & Co., 2 volumes, 1858) II, 181-183. 

John Mare 45 

governor of North Carolina and future United States senator; the 
deputy grand master was Richard Caswell, who had relinquished the 
governorship the preceding day. 160 In fact, the Masonic convention 
had met in Tarboro because the legislature was meeting there. The 
next day, December 13, 1787, John Mare was nominated to the 
Council of State, 161 the group of seven men who were to be the gov- 
ernor's closest advisers. If this was not planned beforehand, Mare's 
eloquence and sincerity must have made an even more effective 
impression than he could reasonably have dared to hope. 

There was, however, one small, rather absurd complication. Three 
years before, John Mare's claim for payment of his bill for the goods 
supplied to the army was one of many the legislature ordered paid 
but failed to pay. 162 On December 2, 1787, it came up again for 
consideration and was referred by the House of Commons to the 
Senate. 163 With his nomination to the Council of State, this claim for 
£46 175. 2d. apparently became a political liability. On December 20 
he was graciously given permission to withdraw his claim 164 and 
duly appointed to the council. 165 On November 10, 1788, he was 
nominated again. 166 He reached the pinnacle of his political career in 
November, 1789, when he represented the borough town of Eden- 
ton 167 at the convention which ratified the Constitution of the United 
States. He voted for ratification 168 and was nominated for the third 
time to the Council of State. 169 As a member of that convention, he had 
a hand in chartering the University of North Carolina. 

Respected, influential, successful— John Mare was all of these— 
but there were already hints of impending trouble. He might have 
been one of the large landowners of Chowan County had he wished, 
for his wife inherited several thousand acres of land from her father; 
yet, he had immediately sold all his wife's land, more than 2,500 

160 "Early Minutes of the Grand Lodge," VII, 145-146; Haywood, Freemasonry, 18-19, 
states that this charge is preserved in Ahiman Rezon and Masonic Ritual of North 
Carolina, Part II, 6, published in New Bern in 1805; Haywood, Freemasonry, 20, and 
Spires, "Colonial History of Unanimity Lodge," unnumbered 6, list the officers : Samuel 
Johnston, grand master; Richard Caswell, deputy grand master; Richard Ellis, senior 
grand warden; Michael Payne, junior grand warden; Abner Neale, grand treasurer; 
and James Glasgow, grand secretary. Harris to Walker, February 8, 1961, says "Cas- 
well received four of the nine votes cast [for deputy grand master], John Mare re- 
ceived two, and three votes were divided among two others." 

161 Clark, State Records, XX, 226. 
188 Clark, State Records, XIX, 763. 

163 Clark, State Records, XX, 200. 

164 Clark, State Records, XX, 270. 

165 Clark, State Records, XX, 455. 

166 Clark, State Records, XX, 491; XXI, 19. He was not reelected. 

167 Clark, State Records, XXII, 39. 

168 Clark, State Records, XXII, 49. 

169 Clark, State Records, XXI, 251, 611. Again he was not reelected from a much 
larger list of nominees. 

46 The North Carolina Historical Review 

acres, for only £600 in state currency, at a time when he was already 
established in business. 170 The price he paid for the two unimproved 
lots in Edenton 171 was ten times what it should have been, judging by 
similar sales that same year, and £600 for the Broad Street lot was 
unreasonably high. The first evidence of financial difficulties, how- 
ever, was the tapering off of the amount of duty he paid and the 
disappearance of his name after 1793 from the records of the Port of 
Roanoke, clear proof that he was no longer importing merchandise 
for his store. By the spring of 1795 he had lost all his land in Tyrrell 
and Bertie counties. 172 Personal tragedy befell him, too, in the loss 
of his wife. 173 In September, 1797, he took steps to secure some 
property for the children by conveying to his daughters, Mary and 
Elizabeth Anne, "for love and affection" and £5 apiece, three slaves 
each. 174 The token payment safeguarded the children's possession as 
a gift to minors could not have done. Six months later he was sued 
for debt and confronted with a court order for the sale of property 
amounting to £375 5s. 4d. plus the sheriff's fee. On May 20, 1798, 
to satisfy that debt, the Broad Street property was sold for £315; 
presumably the rest was paid in cash. 175 In April, 1799, Mare mort- 
gaged to Allen Ramsay his home and the house next door, for £518 
5s. 6d. to be paid by October 13. 176 It was the beginning of final 
disaster. The mortgage was not paid, and by law John Mare auto- 
matically became liable for twice its amount. Allen Ramsay's untimely 
death left his executors no choice but to sue and made impossible 
any verdict not in their favor. On October 20, 1800, the court awarded 
them the full sum of £1,036 9s. 0d., plus damages of £8 3s. Od. and 
the sheriff's fee, to be paid by April 6, 1801. On May 4, 1801, the 
Mare home was sold by the sheriff for £100 to Alexander Millen, 
and the house next door for £550 to Thomas Satterfield. 177 The two 
comparatively worthless "back lots" were not— probably could not 
be— sold. Of the twenty- two slaves listed in the 1790 census, six 

170 Chowan Deed Book, R-2, 429. 

171 Chowan Deed Book T-l, 207, 208. The price was £250, but the top tax valuation 
for the two lots together never exceeded £10. 

172 Chowan Tax List, 1795. 

173 It was required by law that a wife should give her consent, in private examina- 
tion, to the sale of property in which she had a dower right, and the statement of 
this consent was recorded in a postscript after the deed. No such postscript appears 
with any of the deeds disposing of John Mare's property. The census of 1800, manu- 
script in the State Archives, confirms the fact that she was dead by then. 

174 Chowan Deed Book A-2, 62, 63; Chowan Court Minutes, June, 1795-June, 1798, 
December Term, 1797. 

175 Chowan Deed Book B-2, 210. 

176 Chowan Deed Book B-2, 25. 

177 Chowan Deed Book R-2, 525. 

John Mare 47 

who were then infants or young children had been given to the Mare 
children in deeds which also mentioned six of the parents; and one 
of those must have been over fifty years old by 1797, for in that year 
and the next, John Mare listed only five slaves between twelve and 
fifty. No bills of sale have been found to show what became of the 
rest, but by the spring of 1800 all were gone. 178 

Mare was one of the justices presiding for two of three days of 
court in June, 1798, three of four days in September, five of six days 
in December, and two of probably five days in March, 1799. He 
presided on the first morning of the next term, June 10, 1799, but he 
was not present that afternoon, on the remaining days of court, or 
ever again. 179 He failed to list his taxes in 1800 and did not take 
the list of taxables in his district in that year, when it would have 
been his turn. His name did not appear on the list of justices in 1800 
or thereafter. 180 At least one other suit against him, fortunately for 
a small sum, was won by the plaintiff. 181 The signs all point to a 
sudden and disabling illness, perhaps a stroke, a heart attack, or a 
crippling injury, from which he never recovered sufficiently to put 
his affairs in order or even to make a will. 182 

He was still living in June, 1802, 183 but was dead by April, 1803. 184 
No mention of his death has been found in the minutes of the Grand 
Lodge of North Carolina, 185 and Unanimity Lodge had ceased to 
meet in November, 1799, about five months after the probable be- 
ginning of his illness. No obituary notice has been found in any 
extant newspaper. No administrator was appointed to look after his 
estate nor any guardian to look after his daughters, 186 both still 
minors. All John Mare had left was the pair of "back lots," which no 
one wanted at any price; in effect, there was no estate to be ad- 
ministered. Except for their three slaves apiece, the Mare children 
had nothing— nothing, that is, but the loyalty and love of their 
mother's family. 

178 Chowan Tax Lists, 1797, 1798, and 1800. 

170 Chowan Court Minutes, June, 1795-June, 1798 ; Chowan Court Minutes, Sep~ 
tember, 1798-December, 1801; Chowan Court Minutes, March, 1802-March, 1808. 

180 Chowan Court Minutes, September, 1798-December, 1801. 

181 David Clark was awarded damages of £7 15s. Qd. in October, 1801. See summonses 
in Cupola House Collection. 

182 No will is recorded in Chowan Will Books or mentioned in Chowan Court Minutes. 

183 Chowan Deed Book W-l, 512. This deed refers to New Plan Lot 56 as "late 
the property of John Mare Esquire" and "lately Occupied by Robert Moody dece d ." 

^Chowan Tax List, 1803, "Mare (John's, Estate)." Though dated July, 1803, this 
shows property as of April 1, like the other tax lists. 

^Walker to Harris, February 1, 1961, specifically asked for the date of Mare's 
death; Harris to Walker, February 8, 1961, could not answer the question. 

^Neither John Mare, his children, nor his property was mentioned in Chowan 
Court Minutes from 1800 through 1810. 

48 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Their widowed aunt, Lydia Bennett (William Bennett had died 
in January, 1801 ), 187 was still living on the Bennett plantation with 
her oldest son and six minor children. 188 The Bennetts assumed 
responsibility for the two girls, so there was no need for the court 
to appoint an administrator or guardian. John Boyd Bennett struggled 
for several years with John Mare's estate, 189 listed taxes for the girls, 190 
managed their meager funds, acquired new slaves for them, 191 and 
by April, 1805, bought back for them their old home in town, 192 for 
which he failed to register the deed. Then in October, 1807, he and 
his mother and his eldest sister's husband all died, 193 leaving a 
brother who was still a minor as head of a household of six girls, of 
whom Mary Mare may have been the only one not herself a minor. 

The next summer, on July 28, 1808, Mary Mare was married at 
the Bennett home to Nathaniel C. Bissell, a sea captain of thirty. 194 
On September 14, 1809, Elizabeth Anne Mare was married to John 
Dickinson, 195 a son of her father's friend, Dr. Samuel Dickinson. 196 
On March 12, 1812, she died at her sister's home, leaving no children. 
The rector of St. Paul's Church preached her funeral sermon, 197 and 
she was probably buried in the churchyard with members of her 
husband's family. Her husband died in Rhode Island three years 
later. 198 The Dickinsons were members of St. Paul's, as were Nathaniel 
Bissell's brother Charles and his wife. 199 Bissell himself was not, 
though after his marriage he subscribed and paid $4.00 toward a 
plank fence to enclose the churchyard. 200 After Elizabeth (Mare) 

187 Chowan Deed Book B-2, 293; Raleigh Register, February 10, 1801. 

188 Chowan Will Book B, 289. 

189 Chowan Tax Lists, 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807. 

190 Chowan Tax Lists, 1805 and 1807. 

191 Elizabeth Anne Mare's marriage contract lists two of the slaves her father 
had given her, their four children, and five more. Chowan Deed Book E-2, 115. 

192 Chowan Tax List, 1805, shows one town lot for Mary and Eliza Mare; Chowan Tax 
List, 1807, shows one lot valued at £100 for Mary and Elissa Mare; Chowan Deed 
Book E-2, 5, shows that Elizabeth Anne Mare sold her interest in New Plan Lot 55 
to her brother-in-law, Nathaniel C Bissell, on April 21, 1809. 

193 Edenton Gazette and North Carolina Advertiser, October 8, 1807, and November 
5, 1807; Raleigh Register, October 15, 1807. 

194 Chowan Marriage Bonds, 12 ; Edenton Gazette and North Carolina Advertiser, 
July 28, 1808; the Bissell tombstone in St. Paul's churchyard, Edenton. 

195 Chowan Marriage Bonds, 46; Chowan Deed Book E-2, 115; Edenton Gazette 
and North Carolina Advertiser, September 15, 1809; and Raleigh Register, Septem- 
ber 21, 1809, which gives an incorrect date for the wedding. 

198 Dr. Dickinson's family occupied the Cupola House, Edenton, from 1777 to 1918. 
Apparently John Dickinson and his wife did not live there with his mother. 

167 Edenton Gazette, March 17, 1812; Raleigh Register, March 27, 1812. 

168 Raleigh Register, May 26, 1815. 

199 1806-1809 Repairs, St. Paul's Church. John Boyd Bennett subscribed $15.00 ; 
Charles Bissell and his wife subscribed $25.00 and $12.00, respectively, with her 
pledge later increased to $20.00; John Dickinson subscribed $5.00; his mother sub- 
scribed $20.00 toward building a spire and buying a clock. 

200 1806-1809 Repairs, St. Paul's Church. 

John Mare 49 

Dickinson's death, Bissell and his wife sold the Church Street house 201 
(they had bought Elizabeth's interest before her marriage) 202 and 
moved to the southwest corner of Broad and Queen Streets, 203 next 
door to the Broad Street lot John Mare had once owned. There Mary 
(Mare) Bissell spent the rest of her life. 204 

It must have been a lonely life in some ways, with no children and 
her husband away a great deal. Much responsibility and much 
anxiety fell on Mary. She had to take care of her husband's property 
during his long absences, and he did not keep it in particularly good 
order. 205 On the morning of July 4, 1821, for instance, she was given 
exactly four hours to get the tenants out of a building he owned in 
Cheapside, because for two consecutive years it had been classed as a 
fire hazard. 206 His warehouse on Long Wharf must have been almost 
more than she could cope with. 207 There were financial difficulties, 
too, mortgages, 208 and suits for debt which forced the sale of some of 
her slaves. 209 Worst of all were his shipwrecks, though they at least 
were over and he was safe before she found out about them. In the 
fall of 1819 Captain Bissell's brig "William" was plundered by a 
pirate who took about twenty-five precious bags of coffee and all 
the Negro members of the crew. Then, before they could complete 
the voyage from St. Thomas to New Orleans, the "William" foundered 
and sank; the crew, what was left of it, was saved by a ship bound 
for Havana. 210 They were saved again, ten years later, when the 
schooner "Two Brothers" was lost near Egg Harbor, New Jersey, on 
its way to New York. 211 The Bissell family was in the shipping busi- 
ness, literally, and the ships Nathaniel Bissell sailed were usually 
family-owned. In this light, his financial problems seem only normal. 
On May 23, 1833, "being about to leave Edenton by sea," he made his 
will, leaving what he had to his wife. 212 He returned safely from his 
voyage but died on March 31, 1834, 213 and was buried in St. Paul's 

201 Chowan Deed Book G-2, 113. 

202 Chowan Deed Book E-2, 5. 

203 Chowan Deed Book D-l, 186. 

204 Chowan Deed Book, L-2, 163. 

205 Cupola House Collection. Order dated July 8, 1820, about a shed considered a 
fire hazard; and constable's report dated September 13, 1821. 

206 Orders dated July 8, 1820, and July 4, 1821, in Cupola House Collection. 

207 Cupola House Collection. Constable's report dated September 13, 1821. 
^Chowan Deed Books G-2, 459; H-2, 336; and K-2, 291. 

209 Chowan Deed Book K-2, 648. 

210 Edenton Gazette, November 22, 1819. 

211 Edenton Gazette, November 14, 1829. 

212 Chowan Will Book C, 174. 

213 Bissell tombstone, St. Paul's churchyard, Edenton. 

50 The North Carolina Historical Review 

On the last day of October, 1836, Mary ( Mare ) Bissell made her 
own will, one of the most interesting documents recorded in Chowan 
County. Her home and more than a thousand acres in Washington 
County were to be sold to pay her husband's debts. One hundred 
dollars was to be given to the vestry of St. Paul's Church "to aid in 
the erection of a Suitable enclosure around the grave yard of said 
Church, within which I wish my mortal remains to be entered [sic] ." 
One hundred dollars was set aside for the care of her old nurse Hagar, 
who was to be allowed to decide for herself where she wished to live, 
since she did not wish to go to Africa. The most unexpected pro- 
visions of the will were those for the seven slaves who did wish to go, 
one of them the youngest of the three her father had conveyed to her 
almost forty years before. The two lots on East Gale Street were 
to be sold (they brought only $30.00 ) 214 to defray their expenses. 
The slaves were to be sent by the American "Colozenation" Society- 
Mary's spelling was undeniably weak— to one of its colonies in 
Africa. It was perhaps unreasonably optimistic to hope for a settle- 
ment of Nathaniel Bissell's claim against the French government for 
one of his ships seized by French privateers during the naval war of 
1796-1797, but there were definite instructions for the use of the 
proceeds, if there were any: The rest of her husband's debts were 
to be settled; $100 was to be paid to St. Paul's Church; $500 was to 
be given to a cousin in New Bern; and the remainder, and any balance 
after the settlement of her estate, was to be paid to the American 
Colonization Society for the use of her slaves who were going to 
Africa. If Hagar should die before her money was used up, the 
remainder was to go toward the churchyard fence. 215 

Exactly a week later, on November 7, 1836, Mary A. Bissell died. 216 
She was buried in the grave of her husband, under the magnolias 
south of the church. Their broken tombstone is inscribed: 

In memory of / Cap. Nathaniel C. Bissell / Who departed this life / 
March 31, 1834 / Aged 56 years / Also / his Consort / Mary A. Bissell / 
Who departed this life / Nov. 8th 1836 / Aged 51 years 9 mos. 217 

214 Chowan Deed Book L-2, 388. 

215 Chowan Will Book C, 203. 

216 Mary A. Bissell was one of the thirty-nine members of St. Paul's Church in 
1826 when a parish register, now lost, was begun. In a copy of this register, con- 
tained in the oldest extant parish register, a note beside her name reads: "died Nov. 
7 1836," one day earlier than the date on the Bissell tombstone. 

217 This stone, originally vertical, was broken in two, buried in another location, and 
forgotten. It was discovered accidentally in the planting of some shrubs, relocated 
by E. V. Moore by means of a 1912 chart of the churchyard, and laid horizontally in 
concrete to prevent further damage. 

John Mare 51 


Two minute details have been omitted from the two preceding 
sketches, details without significance in either sketch considered 
apart from the other: an office held by John Mare in a Masonic 
lodge and the married name of William (Joseph) Williams' daughter. 
Unlike the portrait of the unknown young man, which was only 
evidence, these were proof that the John Mare of Edenton was the 
John Mare of New York and that William ( Joseph ) Williams was his 
nephew. Without them, the John Mare of New York had no future 
and the John Mare of Edenton no past. True, both were Anglicans 
and both Masons, but there the resemblance apparently stopped. 
There was no indication that the young artist of New York was ever 
in business or politics, and no indication, except for one man's belief, 
that the older merchant and politician of North Carolina ever had 
the slightest interest in art. 

The first scrap of information exchanged between the writers of 
this article locked the two parts of the puzzle together. When John 
Mare visited Unanimity Lodge on April 16, 1776, and on January 27 
and 28, 1777, he was listed in its records as senior warden of St. 
John's Lodge, New York. 218 There could be doubt about what had 
become of the vanished artist. 219 

The married name of William (Joseph) Williams' daughter served 
a double purpose, indirectly identifying the John Mare of Edenton 
with the John Mare of New York and proving that he was her 
father's uncle. The record on which the history of the Williams family 
is based is contained in the Bible of William (Joseph) Williams' 
daughter Ann, who married John Ingalls of New Bern; "Mrs. Ann 
Ingalls who resides in Newbern" was the cousin named in Mary 
(Mare) Bissell's will. The kinship between Mare and Williams ex- 
plains the date on the Williams portraits of the Reverend Charles 
Pettigrew and his wife, August 20, 1785, and September 15, 1785 
respectively. They are even marked "Edenton" after the signature. 
The fact that the Pettigrew portraits were painted in Edenton at a 

218 Goodwin double-checked these entries because of Spires' statement that Mare 
was junior warden, and found that J and S were hard to distinguish in the writing 
of the secretary of that period; but the second letter is e, not w, so it is certain that 
Mare was listed as senior warden of St. John's. 

219 The account with John Mare of E. Dutith & Co., Philadelphia, mentioning 
"Mr. Cummings the Lawyer," who had written and sealed a deposition for them, 
confirms John Mare's presence in Edenton, where William Cummings practiced law 
for many years. The photostat shows Mare's unmistakable signature. 

220 Mrs. Henry W. Howell, Jr., librarian, Frick Art Reference Library, New York 
City, to Elizabeth V. Moore, March 28, 1966, letter in possession of E. V. Moore. 


52 The North Carolina Historical Review 

time when Williams was believed to have been working only in New 
York lends credence to the possibility that he may have been the 
second free white male over sixteen years of age in John Mare's house- 
hold in the 1790 census, whose presence is otherwise unexplained. 221 
Such intimacy would help to account for his daughter's being re- 
membered in Mary (Mare) Bissell's will. 

There are important questions still unanswered. Where was John 
Mare educated, to be able to hold his own among the leaders of the 
state? Who taught him to paint, and where? Why did he leave New 
York for a tiny town like Edenton? If it was to seek commissions, he 
seems to have been notably unsuccessful. The fact that his nephew 
painted the Pettigrew portraits is fairly good evidence that Mare, 
a better painter, was not painting professionally at that time. Strangest 
of all, why did he stop painting? The recent, rather thorough can- 
vass of pre- 1860 portraits conducted by the Colonial Dames in 
preparation for the publication of the North Carolina Portrait Index 
failed to discover a single portrait painted by him 222 or attributable 
to him. He cannot have stopped because of any incapacitating ill- 
ness or injury to his hand or arm, for the same dashing signature that 
marked his portraits in New York continued to appear on legal docu- 
ments in North Carolina for nearly twenty-five years. The greatest 
mystery in John Mare's life is yet to be solved. 

221 William Williams does not appear in the 1790 census in New York. 

222 Mrs. Henry W. Howell, Jr., to Elizabeth V. Moore, June 19, 1962, letter in 
possession of E. V. Moore. 


By Harold D. Moser * 

The central problem for the successful formation and continuing 
existence of the Confederacy was that of retaining the loyalty of 
its people. According to legend, all the white population and even 
most of the slaves living in the seceded states accepted wholeheartedly 
the principles of the Confederacy and fought courageously for its 
existence until overwhelmed by the force of numbers and the effects 
of the blockade. "No people have ever poured out their blood more 
freely in defense of their liberties and independence," said Con- 
federate statesman Judah P. Benjamin, "nor have endured with 
greater cheerfulness than have the men and women of these Con- 
federate States." 1 There was truth in Benjamin's statement, at least 
in the excited early months of the war. In its initial call for volunteers, 
the Davis administration received more state militia than it could 
arm and equip. 

Nevertheless, there soon emerged deep divisions among the people 
of the seceded states, divisions which contributed to the ultimate 
defeat of the Confederacy. As the war dragged on and war-weariness 
became a factor of increasing importance, over 100,000 men deserted 
from the Confederate forces, 2 and in 1865 officials wrote "DE- 
SERTER" across hundreds of discharges. Much of this disaffection 
arose from military reverses or from the gradual collapse of supplies, 
but there remained a basis for alienation in the Confederacy's raison 

The foundation for the Confederacy's existence lay in the Jeffer- 
sonian theory of state rights, the concept of a federal compact of 
sovereign states wherein the states retained all sovereignty and all 
powers not specifically delegated to the general government. In 1845 

* Mr. Moser is a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Quoted in Paul H. Buck, The Road to Reunion, 1865-1900 (Boston: Little, Brown 
and Company, 1937), 30. 

"Thomas L. Livermore, Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America: 1861- 
1865 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1957), 5-10. 

54 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Governor William A. Graham of North Carolina elucidated the 
majority viewpoint when he explained that "the line of partition 
between State and Federal powers, should be kept distinctly marked; 
and while those yielded by the States should be liberally exercised for 
the general good, those retained should be carefully watched over 
and preserved." 3 These "immediate interests" of the state, "wisely 
retained under State jurisdiction," embodied a broad program and 
a vast area of action, including police power over the individual; the 
definition of citizenship; the chartering of banks and corporations; the 
decisions for such internal improvements as railroads, roads, and 
canals; the determination of interest rates; the control of the militia; 
and the regulation of slavery. In general the state should regulate the 
economic, social, and political activities within its boundaries. 

Contrasting with these views was the national outlook of the Re- 
publican party and its platform for national banks, national railways, 
national grants to farmers, a national economic system, national 
citizenship, and even national standards for the labor supply. 4 In 
opposition to the national program of the North, the majority of the 
South's population had pledged its support to the southern program 
of state rights. Diametric to this strong state rights philosophy was 
the southern nationalistic program of conscription and appropriation 
of the state militia, which the Confederacy's political leaders found 
necessary to adopt in order to secure a vigorous and unified prose- 
cution of the war against the invading North. Herein existed the 
internal political problems of the Confederacy, and the debate 
among southerners concerned state rights versus southern nationalism. 
So long as the Confederate government held to the principle of state 
rights, the majority of the nonslaveholding populace was quite will- 
ing to support the war for the southern cause. 

As the war progressed, however, the Confederate government 
adopted a national program of conscription with class exemptions, 
thus impairing the nonslaveholders' perception of a war waged foi 
state rights. Almost simultaneously the nonslaveholding element re- 
ceived a second reason for doubting the state rights basis for the 
war: On September 22, 1862, and January 1, 1863, President Abra- 
ham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamations. The ensuing 
discussions of the two Emancipation Proclamations by southern poli- 

8 Weekly Raleigh Register, January 3, 1845. 

4 Avery O. Craven, The Growth of Southern Nationalism, 1848-1861, Volume VI of 
A History of the South, edited by Wendell Holmes Stephenson and E. Merton Coulter 
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press [projected 10 volumes, 1948 — ], 
1953), 313. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 55 

ticians and editors tended to confirm these rapidly growing doubts 
of the nonslaveholders. As a result of the more cognizable national 
programs of the North and South, the war, ostensibly waged over 
the broad program of state rights, devolved into a defense of slavery 
by the men too poor to hire substitutes or to own twenty Negroes. 

As the Confederate Congress began its attempts to present a 
united front against the North in the spring of 1862, the viewpoint 
of a war for state rights began to weaken and the idea of govern- 
mental favoritism began to capture the attention of some of the 
owners of few slaves and the nonslaveholders. In mid- April, the 
Confederate Congress passed its first Conscription Act, which called 
into service all white men between the ages of eighteen and thirty- 
five. A week later, the congressmen passed an act which established 
a system of class exemptions from military service. 5 This measure 
came to be one of the outstanding blunders of the Congress because 
it led to the accusation of governmental discrimination. 

The inauguration of a system of compulsory military service and 
discriminatory exemptions introduced to the nonslaveholders the germ 
of the notion that they were prosecuting a war for the rich. For the 
first time since the war began they felt that it was being waged, not 
for the constitutional principle of state rights, but for slavery. 6 Re- 
flecting on the matter in 1886, Zebulon Baird Vance, war governor of 
North Carolina, stated that "here the first open and undisguised com- 
plaints were heard. ... It did more," he added, "than anything else 
to alienate the affections of the common people," because "it opened 
a wide door to demagogues to appeal to the non-slaveholding class, 
and make them believe that the only issue was the protection of 
slavery, in which they were sacrifices for the sole benefit of the 
masters." 7 

The development of this idea among the nonslaveholders was fatal 
to the slaveholders' cause. Vance explained that "seven- tenths of our 
people owned no slaves, and, to say the least of it felt no great and 
enduring enthusiasm for its preservation, especially when it seemed 
to them that it was in no danger." The idea had arisen, he added, and 

5 Wilfred Buck Yearns, The Confederate Congress (Athens: University of Georgia 
Press, 1960), 65-67. 

* Georgia Lee Tatum, "Disloyalty and Disloyal Organizations in the Confederacy" 
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1932), 15-16, 140-141, here- 
inafter cited as Tatum, "Disloyalty." 

7 Zebulon Baird Vance, "Lecture Delivered Before the Andrew Post, No. 15, of the 
Grand Army, in Boston, Massachusetts, December 8, 1886," quoted in Clement Dowd, 
Life of Zebulon B. Vance (Charlotte: Observer Printing and Publishing House, 
1897), 447-448, hereinafter cited as Vance, "Grand Army Lecture," Boston. 

56 The North Carolina Historical Review 

"our statesmen were not wise enough to put the issue on any other 
ground." 8 

In the fall of 1862 two additional factors altered the war's purpose 
in the eyes of the nonslaveholder. The Confederate Congress passed 
the second Conscription Act and was debating the adoption of a 
new exemption act which, among other things, would allow exemption 
for the owners of twenty or more slaves. 9 Before Congress ratified the 
new Exemption Act, an external force entered the picture. On Septem- 
ber 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued his preliminary 
emancipation proclamation which threatened the manumission of 
slaves within the rebellious states on and after January 1, 1863, if 
these states were still in rebellion. 10 

When news reached North Carolina that President Lincoln had 
issued his preliminary emancipation proclamation, newspaper editors 
predicted that Lincoln's manumission edict would serve to unify 
the South and bring external aid to the Confederacy. Attacking the 
proclamation as "brutum fulmen— mere sound and fury, signifying 
nothing," n as "ridiculous and unconstitutional," 12 as a "clear con- 
fession of the inability of the whites of the North to crush out a 
'rebellion,'" 13 and as an example of the "fanaticism which has been 
growing upon the people of the North for years," 14 editors attempted 
to invigorate the Tar Heel citizenry. "Lincoln's proclamation," said 
the staunch Confederate John W. Syme, "will . . . array every con- 
servative or Union man in the Border States on the side of the South- 
ern Confederacy." And "this bid for a servile insurrection" would 
convince foreign powers that the fanaticism of the North could not 

8 Vance, "Grand Army Lecture," Boston, 437. 

9 "Proceedings of the First Confederate Congress," Southern Historical Society 
Papers, XLVI (January, 1928), 244-245, hereinafter cited as "Proceedings of the 
Confederate Congress." 

10 For a discussion of the factors and developments leading to President Lincoln's 
issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, see John Hope Franklin, The Emancipa- 
tion Proclamation (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1963), 1-57; J. G. Randall, 
Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (Urbana: University of Illinois Press 
[Revised Edition], 1951), 343-385; William B. Hesseltine, Lincoln and the War 
Governors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948), 249-272; William B. Hesseltine and 
Hazel C. Wolf, "The Altoona Conference and the Emancipation Proclamation," 
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXI (July, 1947), 195-205; Mark 
M. Krug, "The Republican Party and the Emancipation Proclamation," Journal of 
Negro History, XLVIII (April, 1963), 98-114; Charles Francis Adams, "John Quincy 
Adams and Martial Law," Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, Second 
Series, XV (January, 1902), 436-478. 

n Daily Journal (Wilmington), September 30, 1862, hereinafter cited as Daily 

u North Carolina Standard (Raleigh), October 1, 1862, hereinafter cited as North 
Carolina Standard. 

13 Weekly Raleigh Register, October 1, 1862. 

14 Carolina Watchman (Salisbury), October 6, 1862, hereinafter cited as Carolina 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 57 

be tolerated. 15 The Wilmington people learned from James Fulton's 
Daily Journal that "Lincoln's proclamation is another move to unite 
the South." 16 The proclamation, claimed Alexander Gorman, editor of 
the Raleigh Spirit of the Age, would "strengthen the unity of the 
South and embitter its hostility to the whole vile Yankee nation." 17 
At this time, most editors agreed with Syme that it was a "first-rate 
edict for the South." 18 

The fact that the proclamation threatened the liberation of slaves, 
however, led to the argument among the nonslaveholding citizenry 
that the war had definitely assumed a new aim— not the original 
intent of preserving state rights but a campaign in support of slavery. 
As a consequence, statement after statement issued by North Carolina 
editors who believed that the proclamation would be a unifying force 
in the Confederacy, served instead to intensify disaffection with 
the Confederacy among a large majority of North Carolinians. "Every 
movement of the tyrant," William Woods Holden, editor of the 
Raleigh Standard, said, "only makes the fact more clear, that the 
chief design of his [Lincoln's] party in the prosecution of this war, 
is the destruction of slavery." 19 Syme added that "the extreme policy 
of the ultra Abolitionists" had now become that of the Lincoln 
administration. 20 The proclamation, added John Joseph Bruner, editor 
of the Salisbury Carolina Watchman, had at last culminated in the 
complete destruction of the Constitution. 21 Gorman commented that 
Lincoln had just as much right to attack slavery "as the Emperor of 
Russia or the Queen of England has, and that is none at all. Even if 
the slave states were under the government of the United States, 
the Constitution which he has sworn faithfully to administer gives 
him no power to do so wicked an act"; futhermore, Lincoln had no 
power to announce even a constitutional act in the Confederacy, be- 
cause "it owes him no allegiance." 22 Even the editor of the Baptist 
Biblical Recorder, J. D. Hufham, joined the argument. He agreed with 
the Washington Republican that " 'the President has gone beyond the 
legislation of Congress, although not beyond their known wishes.' ' 
He explained, however, that this was a confession which he "hardly 

15 Weekly Raleigh Register, October 1, 1862. 

16 Daily Journal, September 30, 1862. 

17 Spirit of the Age (Raleigh), October 6, 1862, hereinafter cited as Spirit of the 

18 Weekly Raleigh Register, October 1, 1862. 

19 North Carolina Standard, October 1, 1862. 

20 Weekly Raleigh Register, October 1, 1862. 

21 Carolina Watchman, October 6, 1862. 

22 Spirit of the Age, October 6, 1862. 

58 The North Carolina Historical Review 

expected to see so candidly made" in a United States newspaper. 23 

Virtual editorial unity of sentiment in regard to the preliminary 
proclamation thus existed from September 30 to October 8: The 
editors generally agreed on the proclamation's unconstitutionality; 
most of them stated that the proclamation confirmed their contention 
that the abolition of slavery and the subjugation of the South were 
the primary motives of the North; they predicted unity within the 
South and forthcoming support from outside the Confederacy. 

The last of these predictions proved incorrect. No support from 
either the border states or foreign powers resulted. And consensus 
among the editors that the Union prosecuted the war against slavery, 
while not producing complete disunity between the slaveholders and 
the nonslaveholders, tended to lead the latter nearer to the conclusion 
that they must be fighting for slavery, an institution in which they had 
a casual interest only. 24 Therefore, instead of creating unity, the 
editors aided in the promotion of disunity among the populace. In- 
stead of invigorating the people, they helped to destroy the basis 
on which the nonslaveholders offered their support to the civil con- 
flict—state rights; and the war became a struggle between two 
opposing ideologies— proslavery sentiment versus abolitionism. 

With the issuance of the proclamation the Confederate Congress 
began a discussion of retaliation measures, and the southern national- 
ist program became clearer. On September 29 Thomas J. Semmes, 
Confederate senator from Louisiana, advocated before the Congress 
the adoption of measures to secure the withdrawal of the procla- 
mation or to arrest the execution of it. Several senators did not think 
the Semmes proposal strong enough, however, and Mississippi Senator 
James Phelan proposed fighting under the black flag. The members 
of Congress referred the question to the Judiciary Committee. 25 

On October 1, 1862, the Judiciary Committee brought forward its 
proposals. Presented by Semmes, the majority report detailed the 
earlier atrocities of the enemy and advocated that henceforth "all 
commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the enemy . . . when 
captured, shall be imprisoned at hard labor, or otherwise put at hard 
labor until the termination of the war," or until the United States 
government repealed the proclamation. The resolutions further stated 
that every white officer, noncommissioned or commissioned, who 

23 Biblical Recorder, October 8, 1862. 

24 Frank L. Owsley, "Defeatism in the Confederacy," North Carolina Historical 
Review, III (July, 1926), 446-447, hereinafter cited as Owsley, "Defeatism in the 
Confederacy"; Tatum, "Disloyalty," 3, 141-142. 

25 "Proceedings of the Confederate Congress," XLVII, 7-8. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 59 

served as commander of Negro forces or who tried to incite slaves to 
rebel was to suffer the death penalty if captured. 26 

Disagreement within the committee resulted in the presentation 
of a minority report which asked for a more vigorous prosecution of 
the war by raising the black flag. Headed by Phelan, the retaliationists 
requested that "all rules of civilized warfare should be disregarded . . . 
and that a war of extermination should be waged against every 
invader whose hostile foot shall cross the borders of the Confederate 
States." 27 

The Confederate Senate, however, failed to adopt either of the 
resolutions and only requested that they be printed for discussion at 
a later date. 28 Meanwhile, senators from the Lower South continued 
to introduce resolutions demanding retaliation. 29 

These discussions on the adoption of retaliatory measures dis- 
rupted the harmony of opinion which previously had characterized 
the North Carolina editors. Immediately, the two leading editors in 
the state, William Woods Holden and John W. Syme, disagreed on 
the proposals in the Confederate Congress for the adoption of re- 
taliatory measures. They slashed at each other through their editorials 
and by their rebuttals spread their viewpoints throughout the state. 
Holden captured the support of the nonslavehoMers and paved the 
road for future disaffection, while Syme maintained staunch support 
for the Confederacy and the position of the slaveholders. 30 

In the late summer and early fall of 1862, even before his argu- 
ments against Syme and retaliation, Holden, through the North 
Carolina Standard, had gained the confidence of a substantial majority 
of the citizens of the state. His program, which organized the dis- 
contented elements of the state into the Conservative party, met with 
success. Through Holden's editorial support, Zebulon Baird Vance, 
the Conservative party candidate, won the gubernatorial election 
over William Johnston, the Syme-supported, Confederate party nomi- 
nee. Furthermore, a Conservative majority in the legislature, also 
elected with Holden's support, had ousted several appointed officials 
and replaced them with Conservatives. 31 With the proclamation and 

28 "Proceedings of the Confederate Congress," XLVII, 25-27. 
""Proceedings of the Confederate Congress," XLVII, 28-31. 

28 "Proceedings of the Confederate Congress," XLVII, 31. 

29 "Proceedings of the Confederate Congress," XLVII, 33-37. 

80 Robert Neal Elliott, Jr., The Raleigh Register, 1790-1863 (Chapel Hill: University 
of North Carolina Press [Volume 36 of James Sprunt Studies in History and Political 
Science], 1955), 106-107, hereinafter cited as Elliott, The Raleigh Register. 

81 Elliott, The Raleigh Register, 106-107; Horace W. Raper, "William W. Holden 
and the Peace Movement in North Carolina," North Carolina Historical Review, 
XXXI (October, 1954), 494-495; J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Reconstruction in 
North Carolina (New York: Columbia University Press, 1914), 46, 48. 

60 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the acts of the Confederate Congress, he was able to entrench his 
position as representative of the common people. 32 

Holden provided the setting for the disagreements on October 3 
when he reported in his columns the discussions which had ensued in 
the Confederate Congress concerning retaliation against Lincoln's 
preliminary proclamation. Though still opposing and denouncing the 
proclamation, he attacked Congress for its attempts to raise the black 
flag and to abandon the rules of civilized warfare. Southerners, he 
argued, "profess to be Christians, not savages." He added, however, 
that "if the North should raise such a flag, we should be compelled to 
meet them in the same way; but a war of this sort would promise no 
beneficent results to us or to humanity." Though he recognized that 
"abolitionism in its worst form" had control over the North, he found 
no ground which warranted the adoption of such a stringent pro- 
gram. 33 

On October 8 John W. Syme replied to Holden's denunciation of 
the retaliatory debate in the Confederate Congress. He ridiculed 
Holden's position and, attacking Holden in sarcastic tones for per- 
mitting his "exquisite sensibilities and truly Christian proclivities" 
to run away with him, suggested the adoption of any measures, re- 
gardless of their nature, which would restrain the invader in his 
"demoniacal course." He added that he greatly favored the Phelan 
resolution, the stronger of the proposals from the Judiciary Com- 
mittee, because "far too much leniency has already been shown to 
the accursed Yankees . . . [whose] devillish mission is either to cut 
our throats or manacle our limbs." 34 

By October 10 Holden had become thoroughly disgusted with 
the question of "unfurling the black flag" and lashed back at both 
Syme and the Confederate Congress. He declared that if the "spirit 
of the times" were judged by the "vaporings of grave Senators and 
gray headed invalids," the conclusion would be that the war was 
"becoming more sanguinary and barbarian" as it advanced. Holden 
also leveled his attack at slaveholders as well as political leaders. He 
claimed it to be a fact that those 

who are so extremely anxious that both armies should throw down the 
gauntlet and henceforth allow no quarters, are not in the war, and never 
expect to go in. We have yet to learn of the first intelligent officer or soldier 
of the army who favors this wholesale and inhuman butchery. War at best 

32 Tatum, "Disloyalty," 142. 

33 North Carolina Standard, October 3, 1862. 

34 Weekly Raleigh Register, October 8, 1862. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 61 

is butchery, yet those educated to arms profess to feel some of the prompt- 
ings of civilization to guide them on the most sanguinary battle-field. . . . 
The case is becoming too serious for madness. Give it a truce, and let us 
not forget that the eyes of the world and of God are upon us. 35 

When the debates on Lincoln's proclamation had subsided in the 
Confederate Congress, the legislators once again directed their atten- 
tion to the exemption measure. Earlier, in September, 1862, they had 
passed the second Conscription Act, which permitted President Davis 
to call into service for three years all white men between the ages 
of thirty-five and forty-five who were not legally exempt at the time. 
A week later the April, 1862, Exemption Act was replaced by the 
second Exemption Act, which excused from conscription school- 
teachers, ministers, state and Confederate officials, mail carriers, salt- 
makers, druggists, shoemakers, pacifist religious groups who paid a 
$500 tax or furnished a substitute, newspaper editors, cotton and 
woolen mill employees, blacksmiths, tanners, and many others en- 
gaged in essential occupations. 36 The provision which caused the 
greatest controversy was one which exempted any person who owned 
a minimum of twenty slaves. 

Once again the accusation of discriminatory legislation erupted. 
Holden asserted that the Confederate Congress by its exemption sys- 
tem had "divided our people into classes of slaveholder and non- 
slaveholder," and exempted "the former from service because he 
happens to own a certain species of property of certain value." With 
this general attitude, Holden began his strongest appeal to the non- 
slaveholders. He immediately linked together Lincoln's preliminary 
emancipation proclamation and the Exemption Act of the Confederate 
Congress. "Mr. Lincoln made an effort recently, in his emancipation 
proclamation," he claimed, "to induce the non-slaveholder of the 
South to believe that the war was waged solely on account of 
negroes." Now, he said, the Confederate Congress was aiding Lincoln 
in his cause "by an act discriminating between the slaveholder and 
non-slaveholder, [which] gives color, if not confirmation to this be- 
lief thus attempted to be produced by our common enemy." He 
continued his attack by pointing out that the "war is waged, not alone 
for negro property, but for Constitutional liberty and in defence of 
our homes." 37 

85 North Carolina Standard, October 10, 1862. 

38 Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy (New York: Macmillan 
Company, 1958), 86, hereinafter cited as Eaton, A History of the Southern Con- 

37 North Carolina Standard, October 24, 1862. 

62 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Admitting that the protection of slavery seemed to be a factor 
in the Confederate prosecution of the war, Holden refused to accept 
it as the only factor. He summarized the constitutional argument 
which had received support from both slaveholders and nonslave- 
holders at the outset of the conflict. Since the preliminary emanci- 
pation proclamation, Holden alleged, the Confederate Congress had 
attempted to protect slavery in the states through the Exemption 
Act, whereas fourteen years previously southern leaders had de- 
manded that the centralized federal government not interfere with 
the institution of slavery, since the "power to protect carried with 
it the power to control or abolish." Holden went on to say that because 
the northern people had tried to abolish slavery through the federal 
government the union between the northern and southern states 
had been severed. Now, he claimed, "the [Confederate] Congress, 
disregarding the Constitution, the rights and duties of the States, 
and the views and feelings of the people . . . assumes control of 
slavery in the States." 38 Thus Holden contended that the Confederate 
Congress had erred, not only in effecting an Exemption Act which 
seemed to support the viewpoint of a war fought over the issue of 
slavery, but also in its attempts to protect slavery by allowing these 
exemptions, which were contrary to Holden's theory of state rights, 
contrary to the ideas held by a majority of North Carolina's citizens, 
and contrary to the Constitution of the Confederacy. 39 

Although Holden's seemed to be the leading voice, his was not the 
only cry of discontent with these recent developments which seemed 
to change the Confederacy's raison d'etre; other voices of dissent made 
themselves heard. On November 4, 1862, Holden printed a letter 
from a citizen of Granville County which attacked the Exemption 
Act and indicated a belief that the poor were waging a war for the 
protection of slavery. Pointing out that the objectives of the exemp- 
tion clause were "'to secure the proper police of the country'" and 
to "enable the owners of slaves to raise food for the sustenance of 
those who are shielding their necks from the iron hoof of Yankee 
despotism," he claimed that utter failure had resulted, especially 
in securing the second objective. 40 On November 7 Holden reported 
the receipt of a letter from a "friend in one of the upper Counties." 
With praise for Holden's stand to protect the rights of North Caro- 

88 North Carolina Standard, October 24, 1862. 

^Tatum, "Disloyalty," 141-142, points out that arguments such as those Holden 
used served "to convince both the poor and the non-slaveholders that the planters 
were a favored class; that the only issue in the war was the protection of slavery 
and the non-slaveholders were to be sacrificed for the benefit of the slave owners." 

40 North Carolina Standard, November 4, 1862. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 63 

linas population, he explained that few people in the western part of 
the state owned slaves. "The farms," he continued, "are generally 
cultivated by white hands. Take all up to 45, and the farms are left 
nearly naked of hands, and there will not be half crops planted 
hereafter, which, instead of strengthening our army, will endanger 
it from starvation." 41 Attacks were also leveled at the planters be- 
cause of their continued cultivation of such crops as tobacco and 
cotton, instead of the food crops which were desperately needed. 42 

While other newspapers of the state harped on Lincoln's procla- 
mation and claimed that recognition from Europe would eventually 
result, popular sympathy with the Confederate cause began to wane. 43 
Within the federal lines in the eastern part of the state many non- 
slaveholders were taking the oath of allegiance to the Union. Accord- 
ing to the New York Times, the "free-labor feeling" grew, and hatred 
of slavery became widespread among the small farmers, who felt 
that slavery was the "prime cause of the rebellion." 44 At the same 
time anti-Confederate feeling was increasing in the inland counties. 
On November 14, 1862, Holden printed a letter from a Johnston 
County citizen which attacked the planters. Referring to a speech 
which Dr. James T. Leach made as a candidate for the legislature in 
1860, he quoted Leach as saying that if a war should develop, "not 
the rich— not the large slaveholder— but the poor, hard-working, 
unpretending men of the South would be compelled to shoulder their 
muskets in defence of the South," while the slaveholders would 
resort to every possible measure to keep themselves out of the war. 
His prediction, the writer pointed out, had become a reality. The war 
was now being waged for the slaveholder and his property. 45 

Soon the editor of the Carolina Watchman voiced the grievances 
of the nonslaveholder. Bruner pointed out that planters and manu- 
facturers were getting rich by the war and were feeling no pressure 
from it. "This is a grievous wrong," he said, because "men, for the 
protection of whose negroes the war is waged get rich— those who 
have no negroes become poor." He added that unless the burden 
of the war be borne equally by all, the nonslaveholder who bore the 
whole weight of it "must sink under it, or struggle to get rid of it by 
investing in land and negroes." Bruner's solution, however, seemed 
formidable because the high price for slaves was being maintained 
in spite of the preliminary emancipation proclamation: those who 

41 North Carolina Standard, November 7, 1862. 

42 Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy, 240-244. 

43 New York Times, October 21, 1862, reported that a Union meeting, held in 
Beaufort County, passed resolutions endorsing Lincoln's preliminary proclamation. 

"New York Times, November 14, 1862. 

45 North Carolina Standard, November 14, 1862. 

64 The North Carolina Historical Review 

had money were investing in slaves in order to qualify for exemption. 
As a result, the nonslaveholder was bearing more and more the 
burden of the war. 46 

By December there was tangible evidence that the enthusiasm 
which characterized the early part of the war was diminishing. On 
December 1, 1862, Lewis Battle wrote that "there is scarcely a day 
in which someone does not desert. . . . The condition of our army is 
certainly below par if desertions are as numerous in other Brigades 
as they are in ours." 47 At about the same time, discontent was 
expressed strongly in the western county of Haywood, where thirty 
to forty men were in open rebellion against the government. 48 
In addition, disloyalty perceptibly increased in Yadkin, Cherokee, 
Catawba, Ashe, and Randolph counties, where few people owned 
slaves. 49 

While desertion, disaffection, and disloyalty increased in the fall 
of 1862, neither the Confederate Congress nor the southern state 
legislatures made any effort to comply with the proposals of the 
preliminary emancipation proclamation; instead, many Confederate 
leaders immediately agitated for a stronger prosecution of the war. 
As a result, Lincoln's attempt to put an end to the civil struggle 
failed at this time and on January 1, 1863, he found it necessary to 
carry out his threat by declaring the slaves of the rebellious states 

Even though most North Carolina newspapers printed the text 
of the January Emancipation Proclamation, editorial comment was 
not so prolific as it had been with the preliminary edict. 50 In mid- 

48 Carolina Watchman, December 8, 1862. 

47 Lewis Battle to his sister, December 1, 1862, Battle Family Papers, Southern 
Historical Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

48 Weekly Raleigh Register, December 8, 1862. 

49 Owsley, "Defeatism in the Confederacy," 455. 

50 The following newspapers, in addition to those discussed in subsequent para- 
graphs, printed the text of the Proclamation: Weekly Raleigh Register, January 14, 
1863; Hillsborough Recorder, January 14, 1863; Greensborough Patriot, January 15, 
1863. James Fulton, editor of Daily Journal, did not print the text of the Proclamation, 
but he stated that it had been issued and added that another one would be welcomed 
if it raised the price of slaves as much as did the preliminary proclamation. Daily 
Journal, January 3, 6, 8, 1863. 

The editorial silence on the Proclamation did not stem from a lack of concern over 
the document, but from another pertinent factor. The North Carolina editors' at- 
tention and comments had been sidetracked to a vindication of North Carolinians 
against a charge by the editor of the Richmond Enquirer that the North Carolina 
citizenry, editors, and state legislature entertained reconstruction sentiments. For a 
discussion of the accusations and North Carolina's rebuttals, see North Carolina 
Standard, January 6, 9, 13, 1863; Weekly Raleigh Register, January 7, 14, 28, 1863; 
Carolina Watchman, January 19, 1863; Journal of the House of Commons of North 
Carolina, Adjourned Session, 1862-63, 161, hereinafter cited as House Journal with 
proper session; Journal of the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of North 
Carolina, Second Session, 1863, 26-28, hereinafter cited as Senate Journal; Public 
Laws of the State of North Carolina, Passed by the General Assembly, at Its Session 
of 1862-' '63, 80-81. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 65 

January Holden, Bruner, and Hufham expressed their sentiments 
and, as with the preliminary proclamation, contributed to the in- 
creased differences of opinion between the two major elements of 
the state's population. It was not until March, 1863, however, that 
several editors succinctly voiced their ideas. 

In comparison with the comments of Bruner and Hufham, Holden's 
early editorial comment was mild and ambiguous. The Proclamation, 
he wrote, "is not worth the paper upon which it is written. ... A 
more pusillanimous document was never committed by despotic 
power." Despite his contention that the document was worthless and 
exhibited cowardice, he indicated that the edict might affect some 
elements of the state's population. Therefore, he declared, "the utmost 
vigilance, courage, and skill are demanded on our part, to check the 
progress of the invader and to prevent the mischief which this paper 
is designed to effect. ,, 51 

Bruner's editorial, couched in succinct but exaggerated terms, 
aided in the reduction of the war philosophy to one for the defense 
of slavery by emphasizing the North's war objective. "The most 
startling political crime, the most stupid political blunder, yet known 
in American history," he said, "has now been consummated.'' Ex- 
plaining that one or both of two possible factors— wickedness and /or 
folly— predominated in the document, he added that Lincoln was 
"proclaiming the annihilation" of the Constitution, and "using the 
forces confided to him, for its destruction." Lincoln issued the Procla- 
mation under the pretense that it was an act of justice to the Negro, 
he continued, but this was untrue. "If sympathy for the slaves and 
justice to the negro were the least of his motives, he would take 
especial care and pains that his proclamation should be fully applied 
to those districts where he has the means of executing its provisions." 
But he did not do this, exclaimed the Salisbury editor. "He directs 
it only to those portions of the Southern Confederacy still inhabited 
by free citizens," and where his edict could have no effect except to 
incite servile insurrection— "the real, sole purpose of this procla- 
mation." It was impossible for Lincoln to hide his intention, he added, 
but failure to accomplish this desired end would result. The southern 
people had to choose between victory and death. 52 

Also aiding in the evolution of the idea that slavery instead of state 
rights was the foundation of the South's war effort, Hufham echoed 
President Davis' sentiments when he told the readers of the Biblical 

61 North Carolina Standard, January 9, 1863. 
"Carolina Watchman, January 12, 1863. 


66 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Recorder that "Lincoln's emancipation proclamation is pronounced 
'the most execrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man/ ' 
Though the abolitionists of the North had attempted to conceal their 
real designs, he pointed out, they were now clarified. They proposed 
"to turn loose four millions of people possessing childish intellects, 
and strong passions, and totally disqualified for self-government; not 
only to liberate them, but to arm them against their masters." Yet, he 
iterated, all hope for the South was not lost, because the northern 
people "have exploded the last hope of reconstruction, have consoli- 
dated the people of the South, inspired them with a determination to 
be free, which is stronger than death, and imparted to our soldiers a 
valor which renders them invincible." 53 

Hufham's exhortation possessed little truth. Instead of consolidat- 
ing the people of North Carolina, the Emancipation Proclamation 
helped to sever the precarious ties which held together the various 
economic groups of the state. "I understood well," the son of a 
Henderson ville minister, N. Collin Hughes, said, "that slavery in the 
South was at the bottom the bone of contention that precipitated 
the war then raging and by necessary inference the occasion of the 
bitter antagonism of sentiment on the subject of slaveholding between 
the South and the North." 54 The Quakers of Piedmont North Caro- 
lina voiced the same sentiments. One of the group said that they 
were "utterly opposed not only to the war itself," but also "to the 
system of slavery, which was the leading object of the contest." 55 
With President Lincoln's Proclamation on January 1, 1863, con- 
tended Judge C. J. Pearson, "the condition of slavery became an issue 
in the war." 56 

By the beginning of 1863 expressions of disaffection increased. On 
January 8, 1863, A. W. Walker, a correspondent to the Greensborough 
Patriot, explained that many of the original secessionists were so 
eager to obtain their rights before North Carolina seceded that they 
"walked us right out of the Union. They were determined to have 
their rights, even if they had to fight for them! But many of them 
have not 'fit, nor bled, nor died' for them yet!' He suggested that if 
they were not going to fight, they should "skedaddle" over to the 

M Biblical Recorder, January 14, 28, 1863. 

54 N. Collin Hughes, Hendersonville in Civil War Times, 1860-1865 ( Hendersonville : 
Blue Ridge Specialty Printers, 1936), 17. 

65 Society of Friends, An Account of the Sufferings of Friends of North Carolina 
Yearly Meeting, in Support of their Testimony against War, from 1861 to 1865 
(Baltimore: William K. Boyle, 1868), 3. 

M Haley v. Haley (1867), in Helen Tunnicliff Catterall (ed.), Judicial Cases 
Concerning American Slavery and the Negro (Washington: Carnegie Institute of 
Washington, 1929), II, 256-257. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 67 

Yankees; at the same time, he vindicated those who had favored the 
Union so long as they could, but who now wanted peace. "They 
are not to be censured or criticized for not wanting to fight," he con- 
cluded. 57 Governor Vance received a letter expressing nearly the 
same sentiments. More explicit and straightforward than Walker, a 
Bladen County resident explained that "the comon people is drove 
of[f] in the war to fight for the big mans negro" while the slave- 
holders were allowed to remain at home, raising crops and setting 
prices because they had the economic power to do so. 58 

Though the exemption acts and the lack of food contributed to 
the nonslaveholders' growing indifference, the idea that slavery was 
the basis of the war and that the nonslaveholders were its defenders, 
promoted by the Emancipation Proclamations, almost always entered 
the picture. The problem lay in the fact that the nonslaveholders 
lacked direct ties with the institution, and the lack of economic inter- 
est in slavery led even to expressions of desire for the emancipation 
of slaves and a reconstruction of the Union. In the Piedmont area 
of the state some Montgomery County citizens met and expressed 
a desire for the reconstruction of the Union "a la Abe Lincoln." 59 
On January 5, 1863, Jonathan Worth, a prominent political leader in 
the state, reported that on a trip from Asheboro to Whiteville nearly 
every man he saw openly favored reconstruction on the basis of the 
Constitution. 60 The Greensborough Patriot reported that E. B. Drake, 
editor of the Iredell Express, advocated compensated emancipation 
of slaves. 61 Behind the Federal lines, a group of Beaufort County 
citizens met and passed resolutions favoring Lincoln's "wise plan of 
compensated emancipation," while they simultaneously denounced 
Edward Stanly, military governor of North Carolina, for his dis- 
couragement of emancipation. 62 In mountainous Madison County, 
anti-Confederate partisans made frequent raids, destroying county 
property; and it was believed that these people were endeavoring 
"to get back into the best government that ever existed." 63 

While substitution, exemption, conscription, and war-weariness 
bore heavily upon them, the nonslaveholders were even less inter- 

67 Greensborough Patriot, January 8, 1863. 

68 Quoted in Charles W. Ramsdell, Behind the Lines in the Southern Confederacy 
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1944), 47. 

w Weekly Raleigh Register, January 14, 1863. 

80 Jonathan Worth to J. J. Jackson, January 5, 1863, in J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton 
(ed.), The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical 
Commission [State Department of Archives and History], 2 volumes, 1909), I, 222. 

81 Greensborough Patriot, February 26, 1863. 
83 New York Times, January 15, 1863. 

88 Weekly Raleigh Register, January 21, 1863. 

68 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ested in losing their lives while they tried to defend slavery. As a 
result of the burden which many nonslaveholders felt, they deserted 
in increasing numbers. 64 By early January, 1863, the second Con- 
scription Act was unenforceable among the mountain folk who owned 
few slaves. In fact, desertion had increased to such an extent that 
Governor Vance requested Secretary of War James A. Seddon to 
suggest methods of controlling the "desperadoes" who had formed 
bands of outlaws and who made travel through the mountain regions 
extremely dangerous. Though desertion had perceptibly increased in 
the Piedmont section of the state, Vance explained that he could 
still enforce the conscription acts among the people there; his major 
problem was that desertion was becoming contagious. 65 Before long, 
a group of "tories" had banded together in the area of Moore, Ran- 
dolph, and Montgomery counties, and these renegades were causing 
considerable alarm. In late January Vance appealed to the loyal 
citizens to aid him in apprehending the deserters and asked the de- 
serters themselves to return to their troops of their own free will. 60 
While the neighboring states were attacking the Proclamation 
through retaliatory legislation, 67 in North Carolina the legislators 
apparently were attempting to counteract the growing conviction 
that the war was being waged in defense of slavery. Though refusing 
to justify their proposals on the basis of the Emancipation Proclama- 
tion, several legislators introduced bills to "permit free persons of 
African descent to select masters and become slaves." 68 On January 22, 
1863, Representative W. W. Peebles asked: 

That all free persons of color over twenty-one years of age, married or 
unmarried, possessing a sound and contracting mind, shall have full right, 
power, and authority to enslave themselves to any white citizen of this 
State, in the same manner and under the same rules and regulations as 
are now prescribed by law for the conveyance of real estate by feme 

6 * For a discussion of other factors contributing to increased desertion, see Ella 
Lonn, Desertion During the Civil War (New York: Century Company, 1928), 7, 11, 
12, 14, 17, 19. 

05 North Carolina Standard, January 2, 1863; R. N. Scott and Others (eds.), The 
War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Con- 
federate Armies (Washington: Government Printing Office, 70 volumes [127 books, 
atlases, and index], 1880-1901), Series I, XVIII, 821-822, hereinafter cited as Official 

86 Carolina Watchman, January 26, 1863. 

97 For instance, in the fall of 1862, the Virginia General Assembly passed an act 
levying a fine, double the value of the property concerned, upon any person who 
attempted to give effect to the preliminary emancipation proclamation. Acts of the 
General Assembly of the State of Virginia, Passed at its Called Session, 1862, in the 
Eighty -seventh Year of the Commonwealth, 12-15. 

66 Senate Journal, Second Session, 1863, 30, 35-36, 44, 52-53; House Journal, Ad- 
journed Session, 1862-63, 169, 181. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 69 

coverts. . . . All free persons of color thus enslaving themselves shall be 
forever thereafter regarded in law and equity as negro slaves to all in- 
tents and purposes. 69 

Had such a proposal been adopted, it would have served a twofold 
purpose. In the first place, the legislators would have directly defied 
Lincoln's Proclamation, showing that they had no plans whatsoever 
to yield to his demands. Secondly, they could have restricted the 
contacts between the free Negroes and slaves by making all Negroes 
slaves, thereby enabling the white people to control better the 
Negro population in the state. 70 

Though the North Carolina legislature defeated the January, 1863, 
bill, numerous proposals for the general enslavement of free Negroes 
and the protection of slavery continued to be presented. On February 
2, 1863, the climax in the legislative attempts to enslave free Negroes 
occurred. Senator John F. Murrill from Onslow County requested 
that a law be passed requiring that all free Negroes who had not 
"voluntarily sold their services for the term of ninety-nine years 
before January 1st, 1864, shall be removed from the State." Immedi- 
ately the legislators, with disregard of sectional alignment, voted to 
table the measure. 71 

In addition to its refusals to enslave free Negroes at this time, 
the General Assembly also refused to enact legislation designed to 
strengthen the state's patrol system. 72 Though the slaves had re- 
mained relatively peaceful, there was evidence that they were be- 
coming restive now that freedom seemed possible. In many eastern 
counties free Negroes fled to the Union lines. 73 Near Hillsborough, 
three Negroes attacked and murdered John Lockhart; 74 near the 
Chatham County line four Negroes killed Isaac Stroud. 75 Both mur- 
ders, the courts decided, stemmed from a feeling of insubordination 
on the part of the slaves. 76 Yet, the legislature withstood the many 
proposals to defend the institution of slavery and to protect the 
whites from insurrectionary slaves. The existing laws were regarded 
as adequate. 

By mid-March, 1863, the idea of a war for state rights had clearly 

69 Quoted in John Hope Franklin, "The Enslavement of Free Negroes in North 
Carolina," Journal of Negro History, XXIX (October, 1944), 413. 

70 B. H. Nelson, "Some Aspects of Negro Life in North Carolina During the Civil 
War," North Carolina Historical Review, XXV (April, 1948), 150-151. 

71 Senate Journal, Second Session, 1863, 52-53. 

72 Senate Journal, Second Session, 1863, 36, 43. 

73 Official Records, Series I, XVIII, 879. 

74 Hillsborough Recorder, February 25, 1863. 

75 Hillsborough Recorder, February 18, 1863. 

76 Hillsborough Recorder, March 18, 1863. 

70 The North Carolina Historical Review 

deteriorated into the contention that the struggle was for the defense 
of the institution of slavery. Leading in the development of this theme 
for the majority of the North Carolinians were the newspaper editors. 
On March 20, 1863, W. W. Holden said that "the time has come for 
plain English. The war was occasioned by negro slavery." 77 A few 
days earlier, J. L. Pennington, editor of the Raleigh Daily Progress, 
asked the question, "what is all this for?" And he gave his answer: 
"For the nigger." He then argued that "better a thousand times, for 
North and South that the last vestige of this inferior race should 
have been swept from the Continent than have brought on ourselves 
all the untold horrors of this civil war. The North is fighting to elevate 
the nigger and we are fighting to retain the nigger and defend our 
homes." 78 

Almost simultaneously with the appearance of these editorial com- 
ments, movements for peace became stronger. Though the peace 
movement had its inception with the birth of the Confederacy, there 
was in the early months of the war little reason for great alarm. 79 As 
the months faded into years, as the hardships of war became more 
severe, as the Confederate Congress passed legislation regarded by 
the nonslaveholder as discriminatory, and as Lincoln issued his 
Emancipation Proclamations, disenchantment with the cause of the 
Confederacy increased considerably. Throughout the spring and sum- 
mer of 1863, the peace forces developed into a powerful faction in 
the state, and as a result stronger accusations against the slaveholders 
followed. "Wicked men of both sections," said Pennington, "labored 
to bring it [the war] on to accomplish selfish purposes, and sooner 
or later, in some shape, they will get their reward; but with that we 
have nothing to do." He hastened to add, however, that slavery could 
not be destroyed or forced on people by war measures and for that 
reason attempts should be made to end this war for slavery. 80 

Every honest heart throughout the land earnestly desires peace. . . . 
Politicians, officeholders and contractors may desire the war to continue, 
but ninety-nine out of every hundred of the PEOPLE wants it to stop, 
and it must stop, or both sections are ruined. . . . Now is no time to talk 
about boundary, or to declare what states we will or will not admit into 
the Confederate family. It will be time enough to do this after we 
establish the fact that we have a Government and a country. We have a 

77 North Carolina Standard, March 20, 1863. 

78 Quoted in Hillsborough Recorder, March 25, 1863. 

79 Wilfred B. Yearns, "The Peace Movement in the Confederate Congress," Georgia 
Historical Quarterly, XLI (March, 1957), 1. 

80 Quoted in Hillsborough Recorder, March 25, 1863. 

Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation 71 

Confederacy of all slave States, but are our people to continue this war 
forever for the nigger? . . . Many of our people, as well as those of the 
North, are tired of fighting for the negro. Let the two sections separate, 
and let those States that want to ally themselves to the South, come in; 
and leave slavery as it always should have been left, to regulate itself. 
Lincoln's proclamation cannot take it from a people whose interest it is 
to have it, nor can our laws or bayonets force it on a people who do not 
want it. Give us an honorable peace, and we will regulate slavery after- 
wards. 81 

Of major importance, therefore, in the development of the non- 
slaveholders' disaffection, in the demands for peace, and ultimately 
in the defeat of the Confederacy was Lincoln's emancipation policy, 
which provided the link enabling the southern yeomen to perceive 
fully that they were fighting for an institution in which they had only 
a peripheral interest. With the issuance of the proclamations, the 
slaveholders and conservative state leaders had felt that unity of 
sentiment would result; instead, in their efforts to point out the 
abolitionist sentiment of the North, they promoted the alienation of 
the nonslaveholder. 

Congressional debates on the adoption of retaliatory measures, 
which resulted from Lincoln's Proclamations, also alienated groups 
within the state who deplored adding barbarism to the already harsh 
brutalities of war. Holden's argument that Congress was protecting 
and defending slavery severed the ties between the nonslaveholders 
and the slaveholders. 

Progressively, therefore, as the national program for the South 
developed simultaneously with the northern nationalistic program, 
the Confederate Congress, newspaper editors, state and Confederate 
politicians, and planters were unintentionally building up an argu- 
ment on which the nonslaveholder might base his contention that the 
war was fought "for the nigger"— "a. rich man's war and a poor 
man's fight." 

Hence, to the accepted reasons for the Confederacy's defeat- 
industrial weakness, the effects of the blockade, reverses in battle, 
discriminatory conscription and exemption, 82 and state rights 83 must 
be added the internal dissension arising from the strong antislavery 
and anti-planter sentiments of the small southern farmer and other 
nonslaveholders . 

81 Quoted in Hillsborough Recorder, March 18, 1863. 

M See Albert Burton Moore, Conscription and Conflict in the Confederacy (New 
York: Macmillan Company, 1924), vii, 49, 143, 187-188, 279-280, 283, 284; Tatum, 
"Disloyalty," 2, 15-16, 25-26, 42, 141-142, 152-153. 

83 See Frank L. Owsley, State Rights in the Confederacy (Chicago: University 
of Chicago Press, 1925), vii, 1, 3, 10, 24, 76, 150, 177-181, 203, 214, 275, 279, 280-281. 


By H. Larry Ingle : 

"The problem is," wrote University of Chicago historian William 
E. Dodd early in 1918 to Chairman Claude Kitchin of the House Ways 
and Means Committee, 

to keep the policy you people have set into motion going till real results 
can be obtained. You know the history of social and political reforms . . . 
well enough to agree with me that it is next to impossible to keep a people 
up to the sticking point long enough for them to see the fruits of the re- 
forms, to realize the dangers of reaction. 

Dodd also predicted that if the war should end quickly, "you will 
find it very hard indeed to continue your just tax system." 1 

With near design, events followed the course of Dodd's prophecy. 
As a permanent instrument of reform the excess profits tax never 
really captured the popular imagination and by 1921 mere accept- 
ance had shaded over into overt hostility. What perhaps is even more 
significant is that occasional progressives such as Woodrow Wilson 
and William G. McAdoo presented a united front with those opposing 
excess profits taxes— and for the same reasons. The brief life of the 
tax illustrated the tenuous nature of that progressivism which sought 
to achieve, in Dodd's words, "real results." The Kitchin revenue act 
of 1918, had it remained in effect, would not only have helped pay 
for the war, it would also have contributed to basic changes in the 
class structure and a redistribution of wealth. The Revenue Act of 
1921, reflecting an entirely different philosophy of revenue collection, 
climaxed a conservative obsession to have done with attacks on busi- 
ness and capital by repealing the tax. 

* Mr. Ingle is assistant professor of history at Presbyterian College, Clinton, South 

1 William E. Dodd to Claude Kitchin, January 28, 1918, Claude Kitchin Papers, 
Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, herein- 
after cited as Kitchin Papers. Dodd also warned that capitalists would wage a cam- 
paign to get the government to promote foreign trade — contrary to what he believed 
to be the best interests of the people. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 


Dm 7 ^ 


I'll BJfiNG 
Home jme 

A cartoon by Berryman which appeared in the Washington Post during Kitchin's 
fight to secure passage of tax measures based on the democratic principle that the 
burdens of government should be borne by those most able to bear them. This cartoon 
and the two other illustrations used with this article appeared in Claude Kitchin and 
the Wilson War Policies by Alex Mathews Arnett, and are reproduced by courtesy of 
Mrs. Ethel Stephens Arnett, Greensboro. 

Kitchin thus had ample reason to understand what Dodd meant. 
He had had to work long hours framing revenue measures that would 
raise the money for the hungry war machine, would be economically 
sound, and would receive endorsement from diverse groups in the 
Ways and Means Committee, the House itself, the Senate Finance 

74 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Committee, chaired by that other prominent North Carolinian Furni- 
fold M. Simmons, and finally on the Senate floor. Above all the legis- 
lation would have to be based on what Kitchin called the funda- 
mental principle of democracy: "the burdens of Government should 
be borne by those most able to bear them and not by those least able 
to bear them." 2 That he had been successful was a tribute more to 
his perseverance than to the intrinsic appeal of the bills. Taxation, after 
all, was never popular even when the money raised was to help 
achieve such lofty goals as "making the world safe for democracy/' 
A major portion of war expenses, Kitchin firmly believed, should 
come from high, graduated taxes on those netting profits in excess of 
a just rate of return. "Then the only standard, the only rule, is that 
this Nation ought to collect as large a sum in taxes each year during 
this war as possible and mortgage the future by bonds as little as 
possible/' What he feared, he told his colleagues on September 6, 
1918, was that history would repeat itself and the nation would face 
a depression after the war. Such a decline would cut deep into 
federal revenues and destroy all chances of funding the bonded debt 
Congress had already authorized. And Kitchin feared for future busi- 
nessmen who would have to carry that burden during hard times. 3 
It was one of the anomalies of progressivism that the excess profits 
tax, a measure which both its supporters and opponents recognized 
would strike at the base of corporate wealth and economic inequality, 
had as its author one who had himself amassed a moderate fortune. 
A successful lawyer, president of a small bank in Scotland Neck and 
owner of a large farm, Claude Kitchin had reached his goal of 
election to Congress from the state's Second District in 1900. Until 
enactment of excess profits taxation, Kitchin's reputation as a pro- 
gressive resulted more from association than achievement. His father, 
William Hodge Kitchin, an erstwhile Populist, and his brother, Wil- 
liam Walton, Democratic governor of North Carolina from 1909 to 
1913, had helped make the name Kitchin well known in the state. 
Claude had also fought numerous political battles with such pro- 
gressives as Charles B. Aycock, Josephus Daniels, and Walter B. 
Clark. After a rather undistinguished congressional career, he came 
to national attention when the inexorable seniority system brought 
him to his post of majority leader in December, 1915. Almost immedi- 

2 Kitchin to Finis Garrett, August 5, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

3 Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917-1918 (Washing- 
ton: Government Printing Office, 1918), LVI, Appendix, 662, hereinafter cited as 
Congressional Record. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 75 

ately his opposition to preparedness produced open conflict with 
President Woodrow Wilson and his stature— at least in the adminis- 
tration's view— suffered when he spoke and voted against the decla- 
ration of war with Germany in April, 1917. When the time came, 
therefore, to frame revenue legislation to finance the war, the adminis- 
tration regarded Kitchin's leadership with something less than whole- 
hearted acclaim. 4 

Still, Kitchin drove the bills past the House gauntlet in almost the 
same form as the Ways and Means Committee originally presented 
them. With characteristic pleas for patriotic unity Kitchin was able 
to secure unanimous support, albeit sometimes grudgingly from Re- 
publicans, for the general scope of revenue legislation. "I want every 
taxpayer, however large or small he may be," he declaimed, "to know 
that while the taxes levied under this bill are going to be hard to bear, 
the millions of boys over yonder in the trenches are bearing greater 
burdens and greater hardships for their country, and doing it gladly 
and willingly and heroically." 5 By 1921, however, support for the 
wartime tax structure, particularly its controversial excess profit pro- 
visions, evaporated because of several factors: the war's end and 
breakup of the nonpartisan coalition, division of the always unstable 
Democratic bloc into warring factions, and Kitchin's oftimes serious 
illness. Alert politicians understood that this situation offered an 
excellent opportunity to enhance their own reputations by promoting 
repeal. Political careers had been erected on lesser issues. 

Even the birth of H.R. 12863, the last wartime revenue bill, was 
inauspicious. In early May, 1918, six months after the session con- 
vened, Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo, ignoring the 
obvious desire of Congress to adjourn by July 1 in order to hit the 
hustings, advised the President that military needs required passage of 
a new revenue bill. 6 Although congressional leaders informed Presi- 

4 The standard study of Kitchin is Alex M. Arnett, Claude Kitchin and the Wilson 
War Policies (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1937). The best account of pro- 
gressivism in North Carolina is Joseph F. Steelman, "The Progressive Era in North 
Carolina, 1884-1917" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill, 1955). 

6 Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917-1918, LVI, Ap- 
pendix, 665. 

"William G. McAdoo to Woodrow Wilson, May 8, 1918, William G. McAdoo Papers, 
Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., hereinafter cited as 
McAdoo Papers; Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917- 
1918, LVI, 7163. One member of the Ways and Means Committee believed that Con- 
gress should set to work on a new revenue measure. Cordell Hull advocated to his 
colleagues that the government's financial situation required additional revenue. His 
pleas went unheeded until the administration made its decision. Cordell Hull, Memoirs 
(New York: Macmillan Company, 2 volumes, 1948), I, 95, hereinafter cited as Hull, 

76 The North Carolina Historical Review 

dent Wilson and Secretary McAdoo of sentiment on the Hill and of 
fears that new revenue measures prior to November might contribute 
to Democratic reversals in the elections, the administration never- 
theless recommended enactment of additional revenue legislation. 7 
Kitchin, revealing that the administration had rebuffed his earlier 
requests to begin consideration of new tax legislation, announced 
that as a good soldier following his commander he would keep his 
committee in Washington during the hot summer to prepare the 
bill. But he made no effort to hide either his pique or his belief that 
revenue legislation could wait until the next session. 8 

From July 18 to August 19, while the House took three-day recesses 
to permit all but a few members to mend their fences at home, the 
Ways and Means Committee worked in the sweltering humidity to 
prepare a bill for consideration. 9 With one eye on the coming elec- 
tions, administration leaders bitterly opposed Kitchin's plan to raise the 
largest amount from excess rather than war profits taxes. 10 Reduced 
to simplest terms by the Treasury Department for Presidential Secre- 
tary Joseph P. Tumulty, the dispute resolved itself into the question 
of whether taxes should be levied on profits in excess of those realized 
prior to the war or whether they should be laid on profits in excess 
of a given return on capital. 11 "It is sufficient to say," cautioned Assist- 
ant Treasury Secretary Russell C. Leffingwell, "that the difference is 
not one of words but one of substance and goes to the very root of 
the social and economic problem." 12 

To Kitchin— and as it turned out, to a majority of Congress— the 
matter was not quite so simple. Any corporation making excess profits, 
either prior to or during the war, should pay a proportionate amount 
of taxes. To illustrate, under a simple war profits scheme corporations, 
such as Ford Motor, Eastman Kodak, National Biscuit, or American 
Tobacco, which had prospered before the war and continued to do 
so during the war, would escape taxation. During the brief but intense 
prewar recession, moreover, some concerns had made small profits 

7 W. G. McAdoo to Woodrow Wilson, May 23, 1918, McAdoo Papers. 

8 Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917-1918, LVI, 7163- 
7164; New York Times, May 25, 26, 28, 1918. 

Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917-1918, LVI, 9144- 

10 Russell C. Leffingwell to McAdoo, July 31, 1918, J. P. Tumulty to Woodrow Wilson, 
August 2, 1918, Woodrow Wilson Papers, Library of Congress, hereinafter cited as 
Wilson Papers; Leffingwell to McAdoo, August 8, 1918, Russell C. Leffingwell Papers, 
Library of Congress. 

11 "Memorandum Concerning War Profits Taxes and Excess Profits Taxes," Leffing- 
well to Tumulty, July 31, 1918, Wilson Papers. 

"Leffingwell to Wilson, August 2, 1918, Wilson Papers. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 77 

and would thus be penalized by a war profits levy alone. Permitting 
such discrimination when the nation was fighting for democracy 
would be manifestly unjust, the majority leader held. 13 

The final bill, not unsurprisingly, compromised the two positions. 
The excess profits principle for which Kitchin had so strenuously con- 
tended remained intact, but coupled with it was a war profits tax. A 
further provision required corporations to compute taxes by both 
methods and then render to the government the larger amount. The 
bill also provided that at the end of 1919 the war profits section would 
expire while the excess profits tax would continue as a permanent 
feature of the internal revenue code. Congress decided that normal 
profits were $3,000 plus 8 percent of invested capital and permitted 
a corporation to deduct that amount. "For the taxable year 1919 and 
each taxable year thereafter," the law set the rate at 20 percent on 
net income up to 20 percent of invested capital and 40 percent on 
net income over 20 percent of invested capital. Although the House 
had approved additional levels of graduation and higher rates, pro- 
visions which the conference committee dropped, Kitchin was gen- 
erally pleased because the final bill recognized the principle so crucial 
to a truly democratic tax. This progressive achievement which, in the 
words of administration critic Leffingwell, went "to the very root of 
the social and economic problem," had its ironic aspect: the bill 

r passed only because of the exigencies of a war many progressives had 
originally opposed and while wartime necessities compromised many 
liberties valued by the selfsame progressives. 14 But as a permanent 
feature, it would offer future progressives ample opportunity to raise 
the rates and achieve a far-reaching redistribution of wealth. In this 
potential sense the passage of the Revenue Act of 1918 was one of the 
most important guideposts on the progressive road to a more demo- 
cratic social order. 

Moreover, as Leffingweirs comment illustrated, enemies of the 
law knew well what the excess profits tax meant. Obviously pleased 
when the conclusion of the war offered an opportunity to rid the 
business community of what he termed a producer of "industrial 
stagnation," President Wilson chose the formal occasion of his 1919 
State of the Union message to recommend repeal of excess profits 

13 Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917-1918, LVI, Ap- 
pendix, 681-683. 

14 Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 1917-1918, LVI, Ap- 
pendix, 681; Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, Third Session, 1918-1919, 
LVII, 3005-3007; 40 Stat. 1088, c. 18, ss. 300-320; Leffingwell to Wilson, August 2, 
1918, Wilson Papers. 

78 The North Carolina Historical Review 

taxes. 15 And in December, 1920, even before inauguration of Warren 
G. Harding, Wilson's Secretary of the Treasury David F. Houston 
drew the fire of progressives when he advised abolition of the excess 
profits levy because, he said, of its complexity and "lack of equity as 
among different classes of business/' 16 Labeling Houston's proposal 
"the most unwise, unjust, undemocratic, and pro-Republican report 
that ever emanated from any department," Kitchin relieved his 
pent-up frustrations at almost eight years of executive domination 
of Congress. He charged that it was a scheme to shift $2 billion in 
taxes from "profiteering corporations" onto the very people who 
had endured four years of plundering. 17 Kitchin took pride, he told 
one correspondent, in having written a bill which forced those who 
had profited from the war to pay for it. 18 While not every Republican 
opposed such a levy— witness the example set by Wisconsin's James 
A. Frear, who three years later was still battling for such a progressive 
tax 19 — Andrew Mellon, treasury secretary during three business- 
oriented administrations in the 1920's, was as ardent in his opposition 
to excess profits levies as he was in favor of a balanced budget. 
And men such as Mellon determined Republican fiscal policy. Most 
observers were far from amazed, therefore, when the Harding ad- 
ministration made repeal of the excess profits tax a major priority. 20 
With their huge majorities in the Sixty-seventh Congress, Republicans 
would have little trouble repealing what they regarded as an ob- 
noxious law. 

The cause of progressive taxation was also weakened by a vacuum 
in the front ranks of the Democratic party. On April 9, 1920, Claude 
Kitchin, now minority leader, suffered a stroke, the effects of which 
were to plague •him until his death more than three years later. 
Though able periodically to work at his office, Kitchin's condition 
gave less trouble when he lounged under the trees of his Scotland 
Neck farm. Thus when the Democratic caucus formulated its policy 
on excess profits in August, 1921, Kitchin's support for the taxation 
policy he had written could be only inadequately conveyed through 
the mail. 21 Even their leader's muted voice would have had little 

15 Congressional Record, Sixty-sixth Congress, Second Session, 1919-1920, LIX, 53. 
18 David F. Houston, Eight Years with Wilson's Cabinet (Garden City: Doubleday, 
Page, and Company, 2 volumes, 1926), II, 101. 

17 New York Times, December 10, 1920. 

18 Kitchin to S. W. Worthington, June 24, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

19 C. H. England to Kitchin, August 6, 1921, Kitchin Papers; Congressional Record, 
Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, 1923-1924, LXV, 645-648. 

20 John D. Hicks, Republican Ascendancy, 1921-1933 (New York: Harper and Row, 
1963), 53, hereinafter cited as Hicks, Republican Ascendancy. 

21 Kitchin to T. L. Reilly, June 6, 1921, Kitchin to W. A. Oldfield, June 30, 1921, 
Kitchin Papers. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 




After a stroke on April 9, 1920, Kitchin conducted most of his work as minority leader 
of the House of Representatives from his home in Scotland Neck, pictured above. 

effect on those Democrats who for their own reasons supported 
repeal of the excess profits tax. 

In the House, meanwhile, a number of Democrats, led by Texas 
Representative John Nance Garner, were beginning to break with 
the Democratic taxation policy that had evolved during the war. 
Garner and Kitchin had never been on particularly good terms— for 
years they spoke to each other only when absolutely necessary— 
and "Cactus Jack," as he was called, was embittered because Kitchin 
had not followed precedent and appointed him acting minority 
leader. 22 Known as much for his prowess around the poker table as 
his legislative ability, Garner became the Wilson administration's 
informal spokesman in the House when Kitchin opposed the war. 

28 James F. Byrnes, All in One Lifetime (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), 
32-34; George Milburn, "The Statesmanship of Mr. Garner," Harper's Magazine, 
CLXV (November, 1932), 675, hereinafter cited as Milburn, "Statesmanship of 

80 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Because he was ranking minority member on Ways and Means, his 
reversal dismayed those Democrats who had hoped that their party 
would present a united front to oppose Republican revenue measures. 
Thus Garner, "the richest man in Uvalde," raised a standard to which 
foes of wartime taxes could repair. 23 

First tangible evidence of the growing split within the minority's 
ranks came when the Fordney tariff bill passed the House on July 21, 
1921. Despite strong pleas from the convalescing Kitchin that "[t]o 
displease special interests in one's district and elsewhere is one of 
the penalities which every Democrat who enters Congress risks," 
Garner and about twenty other farmer-oriented Democrats supported 
tariffs on cotton and hides. 24 Though discouraging because of the 
number of Democrats willing to make common cause with Republi- 
cans, Garner's defection on the tariff was hardly surprising. He had 
often disregarded Democratic free-trade doctrine when the agri- 
cultural products of his southern Texas district required protection, a 
fact that led Tennessee's Cordell Hull to conclude that at heart his 
colleague on Ways and Means was as much a high tariff man as any 
Republican. 25 

It was almost a month later when the Ways and Means Committee, 
now chaired by Michigan's Joseph W. Fordney, reported the revenue 
bill designed to redeem President Harding's simple and straight- 
forward pledge : "We are committed to the repeal of the excess-profits 
tax. . . ." 26 The committee's preparation, however, was not matched 
by House Democrats. They simply had not decided what to do about 
the pending legislation. In June Kitchin expressed confidence that 

23 W. A. Oldfield to Kitchin, July 17, 1921, Kitchin to Finis Garrett, August 5, 1921, 
Kitchin Papers; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, Volume I of 
The Age of Roosevelt (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company [1957—], 1957), I, 227- 
228; Bascom N. Timmons, Garner of Texas: A Personal History (New York: Harper 
and Brothers, 1948), 83-84, hereinafter cited as Timmons, Garner of Texas; Robert 
S. Allen, "Texas Jack," New Republic, LXX (March 16, 1932), 119-121; Washington 
Post, July 6, 8, 1921. Alex M. Arnett interpreted Garner's opposition to the excess 
profits tax as an attempt by Garner, the "undercover promoter of reaction," to wrest 
House leadership from Kitchin, "leader of the liberal element." Alex M. Arnett, 
"Garner versus Kitchin: A Study of Craft and Statecraft," in Vera Largent (ed.), 
The Walter Clinton Jackson Essays in the Social Sciences (Chapel Hill: University of 
North Carolina Press, 1942), 133-145. Not only is this an oversimplification, but Kit- 
chin's benevolent neutrality for Garner against Tennessee's Finis J. Garrett for 
minority leadership the following year clearly conflicts with Arnett's interpretation. 
See Kitchin to J. J. Egan, December 12, 1922, C H. England to Kitchin, December 
13, 1922, Kitchin Papers. Since these letters are in the Kitchin Papers, on which 
Arnett's paper was almost exclusively based, one wonders how he could have reached 
the conclusions he did. 

24 Kitchin to Garrett, July 29, 1921, Kitchin Papers; Congressional Record, Sixty- 
seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 4195-4196. 

25 Milburn, "Statesmanship of Garner," 672; Hull, Memoirs, I, 133. 

28 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 170. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 81 

"Every Democrat is opposed to shifting the burdens of the excess 
profits tax from the beneficiaries [of the war] to the victims." 27 But 
Democrat William A. Oldfield, a member of Ways and Means, warned 
Kitchin while the revenue bill was in committee that Garner pro- 
posed to repeal the excess profits tax, concentrating instead on 
income, inheritance, and tobacco taxes. Kit chin's continued absence 
from Washington would make it more difficult, Oldfield thought, to 
carry the Democratic caucus against Garner. 28 

As the process of writing the bill continued, Kitchin gave what 
encouragement he could to the Democrats on Ways and Means 
who might support his position. To Arkansas' Oldfield he threatened 
to take the almost unprecedented step of filing his own minority 
report if the Democrats were "monstrous" enough to support repeal 
of excess profits taxation. Voting for Garner's plan, he remonstrated, 
would be to side with those corporations "whose stockholders stayed 
at home, three thousand miles from danger, and plundered the people 
and Government to the extent of $50,000,000 profits from 1916 to 
the present time." Repeal would permit corporations to continue 
profiteering during peace time. "This tax is the only conceivable 
check on their avarice and plunder." Had the Democrats surrendered 
the people's interests in the face of corporate intimidation? "If not 
for the sake of right and justice, for the sake of good politics we 
Democrats should not even have the appearance of relieving the 
millionaires and the corporate interests or pandering in any way 
to them." Republicans, concluded Kitchin, could monopolize that 
position. 29 

To James W. Collier, representative from Mississippi on the Ways 
and Means Committee, Kitchin wrote that the government's perma- 
nent revenue should be income, inheritance, and excess profits taxes. 
"[Corporate] profiteering or excess profits should be taxed to pay 
off our war debts and for the maintenance and support of our 
wounded and disabled soldiers and widows and orphans of dead 
soldiers." You should not, the none too subtle Kitchin explained, "run 
your tongues out in a race with the Republicans to relieve the corpo- 
rate profiteers of the country of taxation and keep the tax on the small 
man of $1,000.00 to $10,000.00 income." 30 

Repealing corporate taxation, Kitchin coached acting minority 
leader Finis J. Garrett of Tennessee, would be a repudiation of 

27 Kitchin to C. D. Noell, June 14, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

28 Oldfield to Kitchin, July 22, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

29 Kitchin to Oldfield, July 23, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 
"Kitchin to J. W. Collier, July 27, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

82 The North Carolina Historical Review 

fundamental principles of the Democratic Party that taxes should 
be borne by those best able to bear them. 31 On the same day (August 
5) he wrote Garrett, Kitchin pleaded with Collier again: "For 
God's sake, don't let Democrats like you be caught in the Republican 
net, knotted and tied by the corporate interests and the millionaired 
groups of the United States." 32 

When debate on the House floor began on August 17, enough 
Democrats had been "caught in the Republican net" so that the 
caucus had not formulated a policy. At a 10:00 a.m. meeting— 
before the full House met at eleven o'clock to consider the bill- 
William F. Stevenson of South Carolina proposed that Democrats 
vote against H.R. 8245 because it favored "great wealth to the 
detriment of the citizens of ordinary means" and because the caucus 
opposed "at this time" repealing excess profits taxes. 33 Having already 
received commitments for his position, Garner opposed even this 
mild statement and the caucus deadlocked. Since neither side pressed 
for a showdown, the meeting recessed until evening, and members 
hurried off to participate in the opening debate with no party policy 
to guide them. 34 

Garner, as the ranking minority member of Ways and Means 
present, led those opposing H.R. 8245, but his arguments testified 
to his inability to speak for anyone other than himself on specific 
details. There should be, he averred, five permanent sources of 
revenue: inheritance taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, 
tariff duties, tobacco levies, and postal receipts. "If you can get the 
money to run the Government with these taxes," he asked his col- 
leagues, "why do you not repeal the other taxes in the war revenue 
act of 1918?" To Democratic applause he announced that if he had 
his way, excess profits taxes would be the last to go. Almost in the 
next breath, however, he elicited accolades from opponents of excess 
profits taxation by proclaiming that those taxes could be repealed 
within one year. 35 

When the Democratic caucus reassembled at eight o'clock, Steven- 
son obtained the floor to withdraw his anti-repeal resolution. Then 
Finis Garrett sought to unite the Democrats by moving that H.R. 
8245 subverted sound principles of taxation in that it freed profiteers 
and the wealthy of their just tax burdens. With a rare burst of 

31 Kitchin to Garrett, August 5, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

32 Kitchin to Collier, August 5, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

33 "Minutes of Caucus, August 17, 1921," copy in Kitchin Papers. 

34 Oldfield to Kitchin, August 17, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

35 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5133. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 


unanimity, the caucus bound its members to vote against the bill 
and instructed its leaders to offer a motion recommitting the bill to 
Ways and Means in accord with the Garrett statement. Oldfield 
immediately proposed that the recommittal motion include a pro- 
vision to delete excess profits repeal and the Republican-sponsored 
substitute, corporate surtaxes. To regain control of the proceedings, 
Garner moved to challenge only the surtaxes. The debate raged. 
Garner won a number of votes by warning that the caucus should 
not disdain objections of such eminent Democrats as McAdoo, Hous- 

Claude Kitchin was elected as a representative to the Fifty-seventh Congress and 
served in the House of Representatives from March 4, 1901, until his death on May 31, 
1923. He is buried in the Baptist Cemetery, Scotland Neck. 

84 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ton, and Simmons. Oldfield, leading those opposing excess profits 
repeal, proved a poor organizer, and Peter Ten Eyck of New York 
had difficulty reading a long, unpunctuated telegram from Kitchin. 
After two or three other members made perfunctory admonitions that 
to adopt Garner's motion would be to repudiate Kitchin s leadership, 
the substitute passed 56 to 23; the House Democrats had retreated 
from their wartime progressive position. 36 Gone was their opportunity 
to press for a real option by endorsing a truly progressive tax; instead 
debate now would be over details— all within the context of a busi- 
ness-oriented tax measure. 

Kitchin, naturally angered by the caucus action, threatened to 
arouse various farm organizations to fight those Democrats who 
approved repeal. Now the leader of a minority within a minority, 
he was convinced that Garner was maneuvering him into a position 
of being the only Democrat on Ways and Means who advocated 
excess profits taxation. 37 

When debate resumed on the House floor, strongest adherence to 
Kitchin's progressive program came from Wisconsin representative 
John M. Nelson, who as a Republican took his party to task for 
sponsoring such reactionary legislation. "As equalizers what a won- 
derful pair of levers are the excess profits and income taxes that 
the war placed in the hands of the American people," he exclaimed. 
"By adjusting these levers we could solve not only the evils of war 
profits, of inflation, but also of monopolies and trusts." Like Kitchin, 
this long-time friend and supporter of progressive Senator Robert M. 
LaFollette predicted that those who voted for repeal would be 
defeated at the polls; the people would not permit democracy to 
perish between the twin millstones of plutocracy and socialism. Like 
Kitchin, too, he acknowledged defeat on the issue, but pleaded that 
congressmen take the right position and appeal to the country for 
vindication. 38 Unfortunately, no Democrat supported Nelson's cogent 
arguments, although some did deliver speeches designed more to 
impress the folks back home with Democratic righteousness than to 
influence the debate's outcome. 39 

On the following day, August 19, Kitchin's "Minority Views" were 
printed and distributed to congressmen. Unique in that Kitchin was 

38 "Minutes of Caucus, August 17, 1921," England to Kitchin, August 18, 1921, Old- 
field to Kitchin, August 20, 1921, Kitchin to Garrett, August 16, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

37 Kitchin to Billy [Oldfield], August 18, 1921, Kitchin Papers. 

38 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5193; 
Belle C. LaFollette and Fola LaFollette, Robert M. LaFollette (New York: Macmillan 
Company, 2 volumes, 1953), I, 124, 454, II, 1164. 

39 See for example Congressman Percy E. Quin's address, Congressional Record, 
Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5196. 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 85 

the only minority member of Ways and Means to sign the report, 
the statement was at once a skillful political assault on the Republi- 
can bill and a call for Democrats to oppose every section of it, 
especially repeal of excess profits rates. The former chairman of the 
tax-writing committee contrasted the secrecy surrounding preparation 
of the bill with what he termed his "cooperative openness" when 
Democrats were in a majority during the Sixty-fourth and Sixty-fifth 
congresses. In stressing that the committee had always reported reve- 
nue bills unanimously, Kitchin ignored the fact that bills written 
under his guidance were designed to finance government expenditures 
in a time of national crisis. No doubt he hoped that casual readers 
w T ould see the enormity of the action of the current committee. 

The major portion of the minority report, however, concerned 
more substantive issues. And it was here that Kitchin used to ad- 
vantage his political insights gained from twenty years of congressional 
service. He also revealed his understanding of progressivism and 
what element composed that reform ideology. His attack on excess 
profits repeal had two prongs: a broad appeal to congressmen de- 
voted to small business interests and, not unrelated to the first, specific 
assaults on large "rapacious corporations." For small corporations, 
making not over 8 or 10 percent profit, he cautioned that substitution 
of a flat 12/2 percent surtax for the excess profits levy would increase 
taxes as much as 50 percent, while it would reduce by the same 
amount the contributions from larger concerns netting 20, 30, or 50 
percent. There were, he alleged, some 180 corporations such as 
United States and Bethlehem Steel, the Du Pont companies, and 
various Standard Oil companies for which Republicans had designed 
the present revenue measure; the tax windfall would benefit them, 
not small, weaker corporations. 

To those for whom principles of economic justice had no appeal, 
Kitchin had another argument. "Let every Democrat and Republican 
bear in mind always that these same corporations were filling their 
coffers with their fabulous billions, for the profits of their stockholders, 
while our brave boys in France were spilling their blood for the pro- 
tections and defense of their country." Their officers, directors, and 
stockholders never <c faced a German gun, braved a danger, took a 
risk, made a sacrifice, or endured a suffering." How could anyone, 
asked this outraged Democrat, consent to relieve such profiteering 
corporations of millions in taxes? If the Democrats denied the creed 
that taxes should be levied according to ability to pay, all that re- 

86 The North Carolina Historical Review 

mained was the Republican principle of forcing the small and weak 
to bear most of the taxes. 40 

These sentiments brought to a head the contending forces within 
the Democratic minority. Oldfield, Peter F. Tague of Massachusetts, 
and John F. Carew of New York wanted to join Kitchin in signing 
the report, but in an angry scene in the minority leader's office, Garner 
warned that if they spurned his leadership he would issue a separate 
report and reveal just how divided the party was. With his face "all 
colors of the rainbow," according to Kitchin's secretary, Garner con- 
demned the absent Kitchin for being unfair toward him because 
of his vote for the emergency tariff bill. 41 Just before he rushed out, 
slamming the door behind him, Garner indicated that he would allow 
the report to stand as "Minority Views"; that was all he felt could 
be expected of him. Taking up where the Texan left off, Charles R. 
Crisp of Georgia insisted that Kitchin had no right to dictate while 
he was ill at home in Scotland Neck. James Collier, who had earlier 
appeared to be on Kitchin s side, agreed with Garner and Crisp, and 
Carew vacillated with the avowal that he would not sign so long as 
those parts critical of Democrats remained. 

Kitchin s secretary, Charles H. England, hurried out to find Old- 
field who hastened back cursing that he would sign the report just 
as it was written. Garner then returned with acting minority leader 
Finis Garrett in tow. Garrett questioned whether the Democrats 
should let the public know that they were so divided and then went 
on to attack Kitchin for being a disorganizer rather than a leader. 
To counter such allegations, England said he was certain that Kitchin 
had written the report in the hope that all would sign, but that he 
would probably not oppose any unifying changes so long as his basic 
position on excess profits taxation remained uncompromised. Garrett 
moderated, reasoning that with no signatures the report might appear 
to be the views of all those in the minority. Although Kitchin would 
probably have preferred otherwise, all— including the still unpacified 
Oldfield— concurred in submitting the report under the minority 
leader's name alone. 42 While internal differences may have been 
submerged by the strategy adopted, debate in the House revealed 

40 House Report 150, Part 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921), Sixty- 
seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, 1-12. 

41 On April 12 Garner and thirteen other farmer-oriented Democrats had let it be 
known that they would ignore the decision of their caucus and support the emergency 
tariff bill, an ill-conceived effort to raise farm prices by placing a duty on agricultural 
commodities. New York Times, April 14, 1921. 

42 Oldfield to Kitchin, August 20, 1921, England to Kitchin, August 23, 1921, Kitchin 

Repeal of the Revenue Act of 1918 87 

that no one was fooled. It was quite evident, moreover, that those 
who had envisioned the excess profits tax as a permanent feature of 
the revenue code were no longer in control. 

When the House met the day following submission of the much- 
debated report, the chaplain with near-divine perception intoned 
thanks that "light has shone upon the darkened earth." 43 As debate 
continued, Garner announced that he planned a recommittal motion 
to strike out corporate surtaxes. With mock surprise, Nicholas Long- 
worth, Republican House leader, asked why the Democrats did not 
move to strike excess profits repeal as their minority views pro- 
posed. The Democrats laughed and applauded when Garner retorted, 
"Oh, the gentleman would like to stir up friction among the Demo- 
crats, but he will have a devil of a hard time doing it." 44 

As he spoke of giving Republicans an opportunity to face voters 
with a record of opposing high corporation taxes, Garner demon- 
strated that Democrats were now concerned only with details— 
whether surtaxes should be high or low— and not essentials— whether 
there should be a progressive excess profits levy. And in his good- 
humored bantering of the Democrats for permitting a "sick man" 
to determine minority policy, Longworth placed his finger squarely 
on Garner's strategy. Garner's followers believed, the Ohio Republi- 
can concluded, "that by limiting [the recommittal motion] to one 
proposition out of what they describe as a vicious, monstrous pro- 
gram, they may be able to induce some of the brethren on the Re- 
publican side to vote to sustain the Democratic report." 45 Although 
some progressive Republicans like James A. Frear protested that they 
would like to go on record for retention of an excess profits levy, 46 
the recommittal motion received 48 Republican votes as it was de- 
feated 230 to 169. The bill itself then passed 274 to 125 with almost 
all opposition coming from the Democrats. 47 

Excess profits taxes were now dead. Passage of the Revenue Act of 
1921 began more than a decade of whittling away what progressivism 
remained in the tax structure. 48 In 1935 Congress passed a revenue 
bill which restored an excess profits levy; significantly, however, the 

43 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5337. 

"Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5343. 
The claim of Bascom N. Timmons that Garner's fight against the tax bill won Kitchin's 
admiration simply cannot be substantiated by the evidence. See Timmons, Garner of 
Texas, 99. 

45 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5344-5345. 

46 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5346. 

47 Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session, 1921, LXI, 5358-5359. 

48 Hicks, Republican Ascendancy, 106, 235. 

88 The North Carolina Historical Review 

new rates were much lower than those the little band of progressives 
had battled so hard to perpetuate in 1921. 49 Even more important 
was the fact that the 1921 defeat of excess profits taxes signaled the 
end of any meaningful progressivism; the war-spawned revenue 
measure was, after all, one of the very few measures passed during 
the era from 1901 to 1920 which anticipated the creation of a social 
and economic democracy, which did not retreat from the possibility 
of fundamental changes in the nation's social structure. 

In 1959 Arthur S. Link asked, "What happened to the progressive 
movement in the 1920's?" 50 Insofar as the excess profits tax was 
involved, a desire to return to normalcy, the inability of a leading 
progressive to exert forceful leadership because of personal illness, 
breakup of the wartime coalition, and political catering to business 
thinking all played a significant role in the demise of progressivism. 
While the greatly outnumbered Democrats could not have stopped 
the retreat, their leaders saw no obligation to prevent a rout or to 
build a progressive record to present to the people; instead they 
accepted the traditional conservative arguments that progressive tax- 
ation would destroy business enterprise and initiative. 

49 The rates were only 6 percent on profits from 10 percent to 15 percent of invested 
capital and 12 percent on profits over 15 percent of invested capital. 49 Stat. 1019, 
c. 829, s. 106. 

50 Arthur S. Link, "What Happened to the Progressive Movement in the 1920's?," 
American Historical Review, LXIV (July, 1959), 833-851. 


The John Gray Blount Papers, Volume III, 1796-1802. Edited by William 
Henry Masterson. (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 
1965. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. xxviii, 621. $5.00.) 

Five hundred documents for five dollars! That is a quantitative 
statement of the bargain that is offered in this informative, useful 
book. Its value is multiplied many times, however, when qualitative 
factors are considered. 

For one, the texts of the documents are genuine— about as literally 
and faithfully so as it is possible to achieve in converting manuscripts 
into print. For another, the documents are almost uniquely signifi- 
cant. They deal primarily with such economic developments as wide- 
spread commerce and interstate land speculation during seven war- 
troubled years— unsettled years of political change and of international 
conflict during which Washington, D.C., was less a financial capital 
than was Washington, N.C., the center of John Gray Blount's far- 
flung ventures. 

Moreover, this correspondence includes both the outgoing and 
the incoming mail of John Gray Blount and of others in his family. 
The scores of writers make occasional comments about politics and 
other matters. But profits and losses are their theme. Rarely does a 
documentary publication record so sensitively fluctuations in the 
pulses of so many businessmen and, indeed, of a nation of entre- 
preneurs. And rare is it that a governmental agency issues so wel- 
come a record of individual aspirations and failures in free enter- 
prise. The result is not of merely local relevance; it is of national 
importance. Within these pages parade New Englanders such as 
Oliver Wolcott, Pennsylvanians such as Judge James Wilson and 
financier Robert Morris, westerners such as Hugh Lawson White and 
Andrew Jackson, and North Carolinians by the scores. Hundreds of 
these individuals, even among the most obscure of them, have been 
identified editorially, often on the basis of manuscript records. 

Despite his distant residence, in Texas, Dr. Masterson was the 
perfect choice to succeed Dr. Alice Barnwell Keith as the editor and 
to "screen" before publication the excellent product of staff labors 

90 The North Carolina Historical Review 

in Raleigh. Continuation of the series, many will join in hoping 
fervently, will receive high priority among the many worthy projects 
of the publishing department. 

W. Edwin Hemphill 

South Carolina Archives Department 

North Carolina Troops, 1861-1865: A Roster. Volume 1, Artillery. Com- 
piled by Louis H. Manarin. (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and 
History, 1966. Frontispiece, maps, preface, introduction, index. Pp. 
xvii, 691. $12.00.) 

Recognizing the long-known fact that John W. Moore's Roster of 
North Carolina Troops in the War Between the States (4 volumes, 
Raleigh, 1882) contained numerous errors of omission, spelling, and 
factual information, the North Carolina Confederate Centennial Com- 
mission adopted as its most ambitious project the preparation and 
publication of a new roster. Louis H. Manarin, an experienced re- 
searcher into Civil War records, was chosen as the compiler of the 
new roster, and space and facilities for his editorial staff were secured 
in the National Archives, thus affording easy access to the War 
Department Collection of Confederate Records ( Record Group 109 ) , 
especially the Compiled Military Service Records which provide the 
principal source of information on individual North Carolinians who 
served in the Confederate forces. 

Volume 1, Artillery, contains unit histories and rosters for the 
three regiments (10th, 36th, and 40th), four battalions (1st, 3rd, 
10th, and 13th), and Captain Abner A. Moseley's Company (Samp- 
son Artillery), totaling the fifty-four companies of artillery that North 
Carolina supplied to the Confederate States Army. The unit histories 
are brief but succinct and furnish information as to the date and 
place of each unit's mustering into service, the principal areas in 
which it operated and the actions in which it was engaged, changes 
that occurred in its name or numerical designation, and the date and 
place of its final surrender or disbandment. The individual service 
records, which follow in each instance immediately after the unit's 
history, contain the date and place of enlistment, the time period over 
which the man was "present or accounted for," and the last docu- 
mented date pertaining to his service. The editing is well done and 
represents a great improvement over all previous efforts to list and 
identify North Carolina's Confederate soldiers. 

Book Reviews 91 

Upon the termination of the North Carolina Confederate Centen- 
nial Commission in 1965, the roster project was transferred to the 
State Department of Archives and History which aspires to complete 
a twelve-volume series covering all phases of Civil War service by 
North Carolinians. Future volumes will be dependent upon con- 
tinued legislative support, which the excellence of this one should 
be an important aid in securing. 

James W. Patton 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Carpetbagger's Crusade: The Life of Albion Winegar Tour gee. By Otto 
H. Olsen. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. Frontispiece, pre- 
face, introduction, illustrations, critical bibliography, index. Pp. xiv, 
395. $7.95.) 

Albion W. Tourgee was born in Williamsfield, Ohio, of New Eng- 
land parents in 1838 and died in 1905. He was educated at the 
University of Rochester and taught school for a short time. He grew 
up in a milieu of humanitarian reform but, as a young man, remained 
aloof from much of the contemporary ferment, noticeably the slavery 
dispute. A short career in the Civil War brought a startling change 
in TourgeVs attitude and he soon became a militant advocate of 
reform. Tourgee removed to North Carolina in 1865 and for four- 
teen years he carried on a crusade for civil rights, political equality 
of the races, free public education, and penal reform in the state. 
Self-righteous and opinionated, he demanded that the whites accept 
their former slaves as fellow citizens and looked upon anyone who 
opposed his views as an enemy. Tourgee made significant contri- 
butions to the state as a member of the Constitutional Convention of 
1868 and of the commission which prepared a code of laws and a 
code of civil procedure. Bitterly resented at first, the reforms were 
gradually accepted by the courts and the people. A modern authority 
has characterized the code of civil procedure as "the most sweeping 
legislative contribution in the nineteenth century to the law of private 
relations." TourgeVs public career also included membership in the 
Constitutional Convention of 1875 and a term on the state Supreme 
Court bench. 

As the Republican program of reconstruction collapsed, Tourgee 
took up his pen in support of the cause. Among his numerous books 
three were of special significance. Toinette: A Tale of the South 

. » 

92 The North Carolina Historical Review 

depicted the evils of the slave regime by calling attention to mis- 
cegenation. Favorably received generally in the North it was con- 
demned in the state on the ground that its purpose was "To Popu- 
larize Inter-marriage Between the Races." A Fool's Errand By 
One of the Fools, largely a biographical account of Tourgee's role in 
Reconstruction, was highly influential on northern public opinion 
and a best seller. Bricks Without Straw was a story of the dilemma 
faced by the former slaves as they sought education and economic 
stability in the midst of race prejudice. Tour gee organized a publish- 
ing company which was at first financially successful but later failed. 
He edited Our Continent and contributed widely to other periodicals 
and newspapers. 

In 1891 Tourgee turned once again to his crusade for civil rights 
and took the lead in organizing the National Civil Rights Association. 
In the same year he was appointed to direct a legal attack upon the 
Louisiana railroad segregation law. In 1896 he filed a brief before 
the United States Supreme Court in which he maintained that the 
Louisiana law denied "equal protection of the law to all classes of 
citizens" and "deprives citizens of liberty and immunity without due 
process of the law." The court denied the plea and upheld the state 
law. But fifty-eight years later the Supreme Court reversed the 
doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, and Tourgee the Fool had won his 

This is an interesting, informative, and satisfying biography of 
a controversial figure in North Carolina and a significant one in the 
Reconstruction era of United States history. It is based upon exten- 
sive research in a wide range of sources, many of which were hereto- 
fore unused. The author is a sympathetic and ardent champion of 
Tourgee and yet recognizes the faults and weaknesses of the man. 
The book is well balanced and an important contribution to the un- 
derstanding of the Reconstruction period. 

Fletcher M. Green 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Preachers, Pedagogues & Politicians: The Evolution Controversy in North 
Carolina, 1920-1927. By Willard B. Gatewood, Jr. (Chapel Hill: Uni- 
versity of North Carolina Press, 1966. Preface, epilogue, appendixes, 
bibliography, index. Pp. x, 268. $5.95.) 

The publication in 1966 of two scholarly works on the intellectual 
climate of North Carolina in the 1920's adds immeasurably to an 

Book Reviews 93 

understanding and appreciation of that period. Willard B. Gatewood's 
brilliant analysis of the antievolution controversy has recently been 
supplemented by Suzanne Cameron Linder's perceptive and moving 
biography of William Louis Poteat. With patience and thoroughgoing 
mastery of detail, Gatewood demonstrates that the campaign to out- 
law the teaching of the Darwinian hypothesis was the result of a 
congeries of forces that had alienated, disoriented, and confused the 
people. They readily fell prey to revivalists, religious zealots, anti- 
intellectuals, demagogues, and cranks who exploited the profound 
sense of disillusionment that followed the First World War. The 
author makes every effort to present objectively the patent nonsense 
and irrationality that became the stock-in-trade of the antievolution 

It is disconcerting, however, to find that Presbyterians, who were 
presumably educated and fairly substantial, were in the vanguard 
of the movement to outlaw freedom of inquiry. The editorial campaign 
against the theory of evolution was led by the Charlotte Observer, 
which served an urban, industrial, and basically conservative con- 
stituency. Interestingly, a larger vote against the outlawry of Darwin- 
ism in the public schools and in support of academic freedom came 
from rural and agricultural counties of the Coastal Plain than from 
counties of the Piedmont and the Mountain regions. The reader is 
left with a nagging impression that the agitation of public opinion 
on this issue was powerfully influenced by economic considerations. 
The spellbinding revivalists lost interest when the crusade ceased 
to be lucrative. 

There would be little point to a lengthy and detailed description 
of the antics of the antievolutionists. This study achieves stature as 
a pioneering work, however, in its description of the mobilization of 
forces to defend freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry. It may well 
be that the legacy of this struggle will be instructive to the student of 
history long after the superficial giddiness of the decade has been 
forgotten. What is impressive about the fight for intellectual freedom 
in the 1920's is the caliber of leaders who successfully defied the 
powerful forces that were operating upon public opinion. William 
Louis Poteat of Wake Forest College and Harry W. Chase of the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina were the two most influential spokesmen in 
rebutting the antievolution strategy. But a host of their followers 
deserve mention for their contributions in defeating the antievolution 
bills of David Scott Poole in 1925 and 1927. Among the most promi- 
nent were the editorial staff of the Greensboro Daily News, William 

94 The North Carolina Historical Review 

O. Saunders of the Elizabeth City Independent, Howard W. Odum, 
Frank P. Graham, Walter Murphy, Henry Groves Connor, Jr., Edgar 
D. Broadhurst, Nell Battle Lewis, Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Albert S. Keister, 
Charles W. Tillett, Jr., Richard T. Vann, and Zeno P. Metcalf. 

It is surprising that college faculties were not more outspoken in 
their defense of freedom of inquiry; but the silence of the state super- 
intendent of public instruction and the decision of the North Carolina 
Education Association to ignore the issue altogether suggest an even 
more disappointing apathy and indifference toward academic free- 
dom. Proponents of an antie volution law ultimately defeated their 
own purpose by use of bitter, vindictive, and extreme tactics. A com- 
parison will inevitably be drawn between the evolution controversy 
of the 1920's and the speaker ban law furore of the 1960's. The value 
of Gatewood's study is that it illuminates the persistence of anti- 
intellectualism and irrationality and explores the shadowy realms of 
reaction and despair. As a result of this work developments of recent 
years can be seen in a clearer historical focus. 

Joseph F. Steelman 

East Carolina College 

William Louis Poteat: Prophet of Progress. By Suzanne Cameron Linder. 

(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966. Foreword, 
illustrations, notes, index. Pp. xviii, 224. $5.00.) 

William Louis Poteat was an enthusiastic apostle of progress whose 
career was a prolonged struggle in behalf of freedom of the human 
mind. The survival of such a man in the academic atmosphere of 
the South was in itself a remarkable feat. That he became in his 
own lifetime the honored son of the region's largest evangelical de- 
nomination was truly extraordinary. The fact that Poteat served both 
as president of the North Carolina Academy of Science and the 
Baptist State Convention was evidence that he was no ordinary 
individual. Those awed by his diverse talents and impressive triumphs 
in the cause of enlightenment grasped the import of H. L. Mencken's 
description of him as "the liaison officer between Baptist revelation 
and human progress." 

Although Poteat's career formed an inextricable part of the history 
of Baptist-related Wake Forest College, this book by Suzanne Linder 
is more than a mere biography of a biology professor and college 

Book Reviews 95 

president. It is a perceptive portrait of a southerner with a deep sense 
of human and spiritual values who utilized his broad learning, 
persuasive eloquence, and boundless energy to "pick a little path 
of light in the surrounding darkness" of his native region. In an 
era when southerners generally defined progress in terms of shirt 
factories and hosiery mills Poteat dedicated himself to progress of 
another variety— the improvement of man's intellectual and social 
condition. From the laboratory as well as the pulpit— and he was at 
home in both— he waged a relentless battle against ignorance, 
prejudice, provincialism, and their varied offspring. Significantly, one 
of his earliest public addresses was a thoughtful inquiry into the 
relationship between science and religion, and his last was a bold 
assertion of the Christian's responsibility in race relations. 

This well-balanced study of Poteat's life begins with an illumi- 
nating account of his formative years in Caswell County. The Civil 
War destroyed the comfortable society of the slaveholding aristocracy 
into which he was born and left his family in radically reduced 
circumstances. Nevertheless, in 1872, Poteat managed to enter Wake 
Forest College where he was to remain for the rest of his life as 
student, professor, and president, successively. Among the more no- 
table of his numerous contributions to the institution was the intro- 
duction of the laboratory method of teaching science, a distinction 
which few colleges in the South could claim at the time. The record 
of his academic activities is complemented by a careful analysis of 
his intellectual maturity. Not satisfied merely to place the stamp of 
enlightenment upon the hundreds of young Baptists who came under 
his influence in the academic cloister, Poteat actively participated 
in a variety of reform movements which he viewed as means of 
achieving God's purpose in the redemption of society. Toward this 
end he labored tirelessly in behalf of child labor legislation, temper- 
ance, better schools, mental health facilities, lower freight rates, and 
more harmonious race relations. 

Quite appropriately, Mrs. Linder has devoted a considerable por- 
tion of this volume to Poteat's role in the controversy over evolution 
which climaxed in a dramatic struggle during the 1920's. At no other 
juncture in his career was so much at stake, including his own repu- 
tation and the financial status of the college. Noisy threats by his 
Baptist brethren failed to budge him in his unequivocal defense of 
academic freedom. He consistently maintained that his teaching of 
evolution for forty years had neither discredited the Bible in the 
eyes of students nor lessened his personal commitment to the Christ- 

96 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ian faith. That the Wake Forest alumni rallied so overwhelmingly to 
the support of his stand in behalf of intellectual spaciousness offered 
abundant testimony to the success of his efforts in the cause of culture 
and enlightenment. Poteat's ultimate triumph in the Baptist struggle 
over evolution was an event of far-reaching consequence for the in- 
tellectual and religious life of the entire South as well as North Caro- 

This volume is impressive in every respect, from format and design 
to prose and documentation. Suzanne Linder has produced an ex- 
cellent biography of an extraordinary man and, in the process, has 
added a significant chapter to the cultural and intellectual history of 
the New South. 

Willard B. Gatewood 
University of Georgia 

Legends of the Outer Banks and Tar Heel Tidewater. By Charles Harry 
Whedbee. (Winston-Salem: John F. Blair, 1966. Foreword, illustra- 
tions. Pp. x, 165. $3.75.) 

A Charlotte book reviewer recently commented on the penchant 
North Carolinians have for writing about themselves and their state. 
They never seem to tire of it, she observed. She was right, of course, 
and this book is evidence of the truth of her statement. Among these 
eighteen stories by Judge Whedbee (he is judge of the municipal 
court in Greenville and has a television program) are those oft-told 
yarns about Virginia Dare's transformation into a white deer, about 
Blackbeard and Theodosia Burr, about the ghost ship "Carroll M. 
Deering," about the devil's hoofprints at Bath (Judge Whedbee saw 
them recently), and the floating church at Swan Quarter. They are 
all good stories, and he tells them well, adding fresh touches. 

There are less familiar legends: the naming of Jockey's Ridge 
from races held there with banker ponies, the settlement of the "lost 
colonists" at Milltail Creek on the Dare County mainland, the blas- 
phemous fisherman "Old Quork" of Ocracoke, the Seven Sisters sand- 
hills at Nags Head, the drowning of Ocracoke's Jim Baum of Gaskill, 
the church door which came up on the beach for St. Andrews-by-the- 
Sea, Amy Harris' floating coffin at Duck, and the albino porpoise, 
Hatteras Jack, guiding ships past the reefs and shoals. 

Only three of the eighteen stories are set in the spreading coastal 

Book Reviews 97 

region below Ocracoke, two of them concerning the "boozhyot" at 
Cape Lookout in rum-running days, the third about the medicinal 
waters of Shallotte Inlet. For this reason Judge Whedbee's book can 
be criticized for its lack of scope and its misleading title. In practical 
usage, the Outer Banks terminate south of Portsmouth, and Cape 
Lookout and Shallotte are not on or near them, though Judge Whed- 
bee says they are. Too, if he is going to include the entire coastal 
region, his proportion is awry. Even this Piedmont reviewer can 
think offhand of dozens of stories from southeastern North Carolina 
which would have added interest to the book. If pirate Blackbeard at 
Ocracoke, why not pirate Stede Bonnet at Topsail Inlet? Where are 
the stories of the lower Cape Fear: the Dram Tree, the spy Bose 
O'Neill Greenhow of Confederate times, and so on and on? Doubt- 
less the Beaufort area can provide enough legendary material for 
a book all to itself. Judge Whedbee's stories are so good that it is 
pleasant to think what might have happened if he had done a bit 
more exploring southward from his customary environs. 

Bichard Walser 

North Carolina State University 

The Catawba Indians: The People of the River. By Douglas Summers 
Brown. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1966. Illustra- 
tions, notes, index. Pp. viii, 400. $10.00.) 

Douglas Summers Brown (Mrs. H. Dockery Brown) follows the 
destiny of the Catawba Indians of South Carolina from the time 
when Spanish, French, and English explorers and colonists entered 
their lives to that moment when an aroused Catawba remnant re- 
asserted its independence by rejecting a continuing wardship and 
launched itself into the stream of American life. This narrative covers 
four centuries, from approximately 1560 to 1962. Mrs. Brown has 
supported her account with copious extracts from historical and 
archival sources and has uncovered some new materials in the Lyman 
Draper Papers at the University of Wisconsin and in the narrative 
of Thomas (Kanawha) Spratt. The latter settled among the Catawba 
as the French and Indian War drew to a close. 

Those seeking descriptions of Catawba life and custom will not 
find the work useful, for the thrust of Mrs. Brown's approach stresses 
important personalities (Indian and non-Indian) who influenced the 

98 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Siouan-speaking Catawba and participated in the transformation of 
their homeland and in their political situation. The narrative approach 
which Mrs. Brown has elected to follow naturally places limitations 
on what she is able to convey to the reader. Some will miss the stimu- 
lus of a broad canvas of interpretation as sketched by Verner W. 
Crane in The Southern Frontier and Chapman James Milling in Red 

Mrs. Brown's detailed narrative does not divide Catawba history 
into a clear set of periods; rather, she describes matters topically 
within special time spans: Catawba-settler relations, Catawba defense 
against the intrusion of northern Indians, the firming of Catawba 
loyalties during the French and Indian War, the constancy of Catawba 
loyalty to South Carolina during the Revolutionary War, the time of 
decline during the early nineteenth century, the Catawba dispersion 
following the last treaty with South Carolina in 1840, the gradual 
reconstitution of the Catawba as a political-tribal entity during the 
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and finally, the political dis- 
solution that followed congressional legislation in 1959 by Catawba 

The disadvantage of any political history, of course, is the narrow 
context of interpretation. In this instance the reader remains wholly 
unaware of transformations in Catawba economy, daily habits, family 
relations, knowledge, religious beliefs, ceremonialism, and customary 
ways that accompanied basic alterations in the Catawba political 
situation. Missing is the context which gave purpose, meaning, and 
distinction to the Catawba as a people— their culture. The gradual 
erosion of the Catawba culture base undoubtedly hastened the para- 
sitic inclination and encouraged the apathy and spontaneous alco- 
holism by which a shattered Catawba character revealed itself. The 
acceptance of the Mormon faith by the Catawba— almost to a man- 
is one of two important culture-events touched upon by Mrs. Brown. 
The action aligns the Catawba with other Indian groups who have 
succeeded in stabilizing their accommodation to the bewildering com- 
plexities and fast-moving impact of American culture by means of 
a native or Christian-based worship. Catawba rejection of continu- 
ing federal and state wardship gives the other signal culture-event. 
Both hint at important acculturative forces at work which only the 
personal narratives of the Catawba could highlight. Mrs. Brown sup- 
plies some firsthand information on these items, but with three- 
quarters of her work devoted to documented history, there is only 
space for two short chapters on what has been happening recently 
to the Catawba. 

Book Reviews 99 

Mrs. Brown has written an informative work that should prove 
useful to those interested in the ethnohistory of the Southeast. The 
selection of maps focuses on the period of exploration and coloni- 

Fred W. Voget 

Southern Illinois University 

The Reconstruction of Georgia. By Alan Conway. (Minneapolis: Univer- 
sity of Minnesota Press, 1966. Notes, index. Pp. v, 248. $6.50.) 

Professor Alan Conway, senior lecturer in American history at 
University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, has written a readable 
and moderate revisionist history of Reconstruction in Georgia. In 
his opinion the invective heaped upon "Radical Reconstruction" by 
Georgia historians has been "excessive, irrational, and unjustified/' 

The Republicans never had a sufficient majority in the legislature 
to be confident of maintaining themselves in power. In the first 
Reconstruction legislature the senate was almost evenly divided be- 
tween Republicans and Democrats, and the former enjoyed only a 
bare majority in the House. Radical Republican rule, always weak in 
Georgia, was ended by 1871. 

Georgia did not suffer from grinding oppression and ignorant 
Negro domination. Nevertheless, whites in the state responded with 
violence and the Ku Klux Klan to keep Negroes in their "place" and 
to intimidate white Republicans. The terroristic activities of the Klan 
were apparently approved by a majority of whites. As Conway says, 
prominent Georgians denied the existence of such an organization 
in the state "with one hand on their hearts and the other upon their 
white sheets. . . ." 

Though undoubtedly there was some corruption during Recon- 
struction, Conway finds that it has been exaggerated. It was peculiar 
neither to Reconstruction nor Republicans. Indeed even during Radi- 
cal rule Georgia Democrats seemed to have a conspicuous place at 
the public trough. 

Conway's book does much to update the interpretations of C. Mil- 
dred Thompson's Reconstruction in Georgia (1915), but it by no 
means completely replaces Miss Thompson's research. One wishes he 
had treated more thoroughly the social changes of Reconstruction 
and the problems encountered by the recently emancipated slaves. 

Joe M. Richardson 
Florida State University 

100 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Overseer: Plantation Management in the Old South. By William 
Kauffman Scarborough. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University 
Press, 1966. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, tables, index. Pp. xv, 
256. $7.50.) 

Another segment of population in the antebellum South is brought 
into clear focus as a result of Professor Scarborough's painstaking 
portrayal of The Overseer. In the quarter century since Frank Owsley 
and the group at Vanderbilt began the use of manuscript census 
records to build reliable class portraits from the segments of the 
various schedules, meticulous scholars have effectively used this 
material as a basis for more reliable pictures of the Old South. In 
addition, this author has had a goodly supply of plantation records, 
diaries, and family papers to add color and richness to statistical 
evidence. It has all been presented in a scholarly manner, but anyone 
interested in class structure will find this material worthwhile reading. 

The lot of an overseer was not an easy one. Although held in more 
esteem than the slave trader, he was generally rejected socially. He 
was caught between the desires of a plantation owner to produce 
a good crop and the limitations— either physical or humanitarian— 
of the slaves who had to do the work. If there was a steward between 
the owner and the overseer or a recalcitrant "driver" between him 
and the slaves, his task was yet more difficult. 

In general, the more competent overseers were to be found on 
the large rice and sugar plantations of the South Carolina and 
Georgia coasts and in Louisiana. On these rich tracts the overseers 
might earn from $1,000 to $2,000 a year plus living. Although in the 
older plantation areas of Virginia and North Carolina the annual 
pay ranged from only $300 to $500 cash, the stability of the owners 
attracted and kept good overseers. It was in the tobacco and cotton 
lands opening up farther west where proprietors were attempting to 
make big money fast that the worst overseers were found. They were 
younger men, often incompetent, always poorly paid, moving annually 
from plantation to plantation, mourned neither by owner nor slave, 
and described unfavorably by most people who traveled through the 

In an interesting chapter on "The Overseer Elite," Mr. Scarborough 
gives some specific accounts of men who were eminently successful 
in their chosen profession. Some contributed to the agricultural re- 
forms of the period; a few perfected inventions in farming imple- 
ments; an even larger number so improved their status as to become 
stewards, yeomen farmers, or even small plantation owners. 

Book Reviews 101 

In between the worst and the best were hundreds of overseers who 
did the best job they could under the circumstances. When one 
reads the numerous requests of plantation owners to Confederate 
authorities to excuse their overseers from military service, it is clear 
that they were indispensable men in the plantation system. 

Blanche Henry Clark Weaver 

Nashville, Tennessee 

Dear Ones at Home: Letters from Contraband Camps. Edited by Henry L. 
Swint. (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1966. Notes, bibli- 
ography, index. Pp. 274. $6.95.) 

This book is primarily a collection of letters from the camps for 
"contraband" Negroes established by the Union armies during the 
Civil War and shortly thereafter. One who is aware that at least 
some slaves were literate might be led to believe (and hope) that 
the Negroes themselves had written the letters, but this is not the 
case. The writers were two idealistic Quaker teachers from Wor- 
cester, Massachusetts, named Lucy and Sarah Chase. Lucy, the 
older, stronger, and more articulate of the two, worked from 1862 to 
1869. in Virginia, Georgia, and Florida, and Sarah was with her much 
of the time. They wrote home frequently, long newsy letters, full of 
the type of description that warms the historian's heart— pictures 
of the living conditions, and the attitudes and aspirations of the 

For this alone the collection is a valuable contribution and cer- 
tainly it will be of assistance to students of Negro history. The letters 
reveal also a great deal about educational methods and relief measures 
during the war and immediate postwar periods. Perhaps the most 
interesting and revealing aspect of the book is the insight it gives 
into the minds of two Quaker humanitarians nurtured on the thought 
of antebellum New England reformers and so devoted to their ideals 
that they would endure mosquitoes, rat-infested cabins, and even 
the danger of shipwreck, and the battlefield. They were so dedicated 
to the welfare of the freedmen and so oblivious to the problems of 
whites that they sometimes appear to be infected with an inverted 

Professor Swint's editing deserves commendation. He has omitted 
some repetitious material from the letters and has spared readers the 

102 The North Carolina Historical Review 

burden of plowing through tedious footnotes encumbered with trivial 
and obscure data. Yet the information he provided is quite sufficient 
to make clear the content of the letters. The Introduction provides 
biographical information on the Chase sisters and explains the various 
reasons New Englanders were interested in the education of the 

Richard L. Zuber 

Wake Forest College 

Frontier Mission: A History of Religion West of the Southern Appala- 
chians to 1861. By Walter Brownlow Posey. (Lexington: University of 
Kentucky Press, 1966. Appendix, index. Pp. viii, 436. $9.00.) 

In numerous articles and books published over the past thirty- 
five years Professor Walter B. Posey has established himself as the 
foremost historian of American Christianity on the southern frontier. 
His publications have been marked by painstaking and thorough 
research, an orderly presentation, a critical approach free from bias, 
and an understanding of his subject. 

The present volume, almost as large as the author's four previous 
ones combined, is a mixture of something old and something new; 
and it is good to have it all in one volume. The old is the story of the 
Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists on the frontier from each's 
initial settlement until the early decades of the nineteenth century. 
The new consists of two parts: the extending of the history of these 
churches to 1861, and the inclusion of all other religious groups in 
the area. There is a protracted discussion of two items which were 
dealt with in the author's Religious Strife on the Southern Frontier; 
Roman Catholic activities in the area and the emergence and growth 
of two churches which were products of the frontier environment, 
the Disciples of Christ and the Cumberland Presbyterians. Other 
new material includes an account of the Protestant Episcopal church 
in the region, the story of the Shakers in Kentucky, a discussion of 
the split in the Methodist church, and a summary on the state of 
religion in the area on the eve of the Civil War. 

In concluding a fine analysis of the "slavery problem" in the 
churches, Posey says (page 351): "without the direct and indirect 
support of the churches in the South . . . [slavery] might have been 
shortlived." This reviewer wishes that he had developed this idea, 

Book Reviews 103 

since the religious establishment generally reflects the values and 
ideals of its environment. 

Frontier Mission is a valuable book but its usefulness would have 
been greatly enhanced by the inclusion of a bibliography or biblio- 
graphical essay. Documentation is sparse and one is frequently re- 
ferred to sources which are listed in one of the author's earlier volumes 
or articles. This could be a serious handicap since some of these books 
are out of print. Textual errors appear to be minor; the review copy 
contained garbled sentences on pages 167 and 192, and in several 
places Blountville, Tennessee, was spelled Blountsville. These are 
trivial and hardly detract from the value of the book. Students of 
American Christianity and the Old South are indebted to Professor 
Posey for this informative presentation. 

W. Harrison Daniel 

University of Richmond 

The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. 
By William Gillette. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press [John Hopkins 
University Studies in Historical and Political Science. Series LXXXIII 
(1965), 1.], 1965. Frontispiece, preface, bibliography, index, list of 
tables, Pp. x, 181. $4.50.) 

Of all the legislative and constitutional developments during the 
Reconstruction era, perhaps none more clearly underscored the na- 
tional aspects of Reconstruction than the passage and ratification 
of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. While the Fourteenth 
Amendment has been the subject of numerous books and articles, 
students of the period have not given similar attention to the suf- 
frage amendment. The only other extensive study of the Fifteenth 
Amendment is the Legislative and Judicial History of the Fifteenth 
Amendment, written by John M. Mathews and published almost 
sixty years ago. Yet, as William Gillette has pointed out in this 
unique and important monograph, the problem of suffrage evoked 
a decidedly national reaction, since the primary goal of the Fifteenth 
Amendment was the enfranchisement of Negroes outside the deep 
South. The securing of the vote for Negroes in the South was of some 
importance, although it was secondary to the fact that the suffrage 
question outside the South touched not only on the matter of the 
vote for Negroes but the use of the vote by various immigrant groups, 
notably the Irish. 

104 The North Carolina Historical Review 

While Gillette gives some attention to the tortuous road over which 
the Fifteenth Amendment traveled in the course of its passage by 
Congress, his principal concern is with its ratification. He gives ade- 
quate attention to its ratification by the southern states, but con- 
centrates on the problem of ratification outside the South where, 
incidentally, only the five New England states along with Iowa and 
Minnesota voluntarily had already given the Negro the ballot. Since 
the ratification of the amendment might enfranchise as many as 
170,000 Negroes in the border states, the Northeast, the Middle West, 
and the Far West, both political parties weighed with great care the 
impact of ratification on its own future. Where ratification might cost 
them elections in such states as Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, 
the Democrats fought it bitterly. Where Republicans believed that the 
amendment did not go far enough or where they feared the vote 
of the Chinese, the Irish, and other foreign born, they opposed ratifi- 
cation. Circumstances differed from state to state and even from one 
locality to another. 

The uncertainty of the outcome can be seen in the rejection of the 
amendment by Kentucky, Delaware, Georgia, and Ohio in 1869, and 
by New York's rescission of its ratification in January, 1870. When a 
sufficient number of states had finally ratified the amendment, the 
supporters of it had no cause for excessive elation, for, as Gillette 
points out, some states— Virginia, Mississippi, and Georgia— had 
been forced to ratify as a condition of readmission to the Union; and 
the proponents would not live to see Oregon and California ratify, 
in 1959 and 1962, respectively. Nor was there a sound basis for 
optimism regarding its effect: The amendment did not guarantee 
Negroes the vote in the South, the President did not seek consci- 
entiously to enforce the amendment, and the Supreme Court in 1876 
struck down the acts of Congress designed to enforce it. Perhaps 
most important of all, the American people lost interest in free and 
fair voting. In most parts of the country— in the North as well as in 
the South— political idealism was badly tarnished within a decade 
after ratification. 

John Hope Franklin 

University of Chicago 

Book Reviews 105 

The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Edited by Arthur S. Link, with John W. 
Davidson and David W. Hurst, associate editors. Volume I, 1856-1880. 
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Illustrations, notes, in- 
dex. Pp. xxviii, 715. $15.00.) 

This, the first of some forty projected volumes, is an auspicious be- 
ginning for what will surely be one of the major historical landmarks 
of modern times. Woodrow Wilson, his thought, and his times will be 
known in a more intimate and more complete fashion than has hither- 
to been possible. 

The human interest is considerable in this initial volume, which 
spans the years from Wilson's birth to his abrupt withdrawal from the 
law school of the University of Virginia. A diary which he kept in 
shorthand during his undergraduate years at Princeton is transcribed 
and printed here for the first time, and it is probably the single most 
interesting feature of the volume. 

Wilsons deeply religious nature is well known. That he was not 
always pious and had some humor about him, even in his serious and 
intense college days, is illustrated by his description of himself in a 
letter to his father. He declared that he was distinguished in a crowd 
by his "long nose, open mouth, and consequential manner" and was 
"noted in college as a man who can make a remarkably good show 
with little or no material/' 

Next to Wilson himself, the most fascinating person revealed here 
is his father, the Reverend Joseph R. Wilson, whose deep love for his 
son and constant concern for his son's spiritual and intellectual 
growth are recurrring themes in numerous letters. (The editors have 
wisely included a large number of the letters Wilson received.) No 
excerpt really does justice to the unusually close relationship between 
this father and son, and the following passage suggests only one of 
the many facets: "Your cheerfulness is most gratifying to us all. There 
is no better gift than this, and none more deserving of cultivation. One 
of the principal uses of our wonderfully humane religion is to pro- 
mote buoyancy of disposition, by freeing the soul from that which 
is alone worthy of the name, Burden: the sense of sin. I trust that your 
good spirits, darling boy, are due in great part to an easy conscience— 
to the smile of God." 

Janet Woodrow Wilson, not happy with life in Wilmington, during 
her husband's tenure in the First Presbyterian church there, wrote 
motherly, loving letters. During the tense, suspenseful days when the 
nation awaited the outcome of the Hayes-Tilden presidential contest, 

106 The North Carolina Historical Review 

she cautioned her passionately Democratic son: "The fear that you 
may be provoked beyond endurance, during these anxious days, by 
those Radical companions of yours, has crept into my heart." A few 
days later Wilson's mother confessed that "there is a great deal about 
the Southern people that I don't like— only I like them decidedly 
better than I do the Northern." She insisted that "the only thing we 
can do, in any case, is to keep quiet & submit. The Northern people 
must fight it out among themselves this time, and I am thankful that 
it is so." 

Wilson s voracious reading in British history and literature, his 
constant study and effort to improve his oratorical and writing style 
(with astute help from his father), his cold disdain for universal 
suffrage and the contemporary workings of the federal government— 
all these are among the themes in this rich volume. 

Robert F. Durden 

Duke University 


A Guide to Civil War Records in the North Carolina State Archives 
has recently been published by the State Department of Archives and 
History. Originally planned and begun as a project of the North Caro- 
lina Confederate Centennial Commission, the Guide was completed, 
edited, indexed, and typed for offset by members of the Division of 
Archives and Manuscripts. One hundred and twenty-eight pages in 
length, including a name, place, unit, and subject index of thirty-eight 
pages, it describes in summary detail those records in the archives 
belonging to the General Assembly, state convention, governor, ad- 
jutant general, auditor, secretary of state, treasurer and comptroller, 
and counties and municipalities, as well as organization records, maps, 
and newspapers, which relate to the Civil War. Although unpublished, 
detailed, finding aids for several of these records groups have been 
available for some time for the use of researchers who are in a position 
to visit the department's Search Room, no overall description of these 
significant records of the Civil War has previously been available for 
the use of scholars. Bound in an attractive paper cover which is 
illustrated by a wood engraving of a Confederate battle scene from a 
contemporary weekly, the Guide can be ordered from the Division of 

Book Reviews 107 

Publications, Box 1881, Raleigh, N.C., 27602, for $2.00 plus a 10-cent 
postage and handling charge. When ordering by mail, please include 
ZIP code. 

During 1965 and 1966 the Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc., 
has been involved in a program of reprinting Heads of Families at 
the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790, which 
includes the federal enumerations for eleven states: Connecticut, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North 
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont. 
The census of 1790 for six additional states, Delaware, Georgia, Ken- 
tucky, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia, were destroyed during 
the War of 1812. For Virginia, however, taxpayer lists made in the 
years 1782, 1783, 1784, and 1785 have been reconstructed to re- 
place the original returns, and that volume has been included in the 
present series. The data have been reproduced by the photolitho- 
graphic process on a good quality of paper; each clothbound volume 
measures 8/2 x 11 inches, and prices range from $7.50 to $15.00 per 
volume. In addition to the enumeration of free white males of sixteen 
years and upward, free white males under sixteen years, free white 
females, all other free persons, and slaves, the 292-page volume for 
North Carolina includes a brief introduction and a 93-page index 
to names. Copies of the North Carolina Census— 1790 may be ordered 
from the publisher at 521-23 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland, 
21202, for $12.50 each. 

A History of the North Carolina State Board of Health, 1877-1925, 
by Benjamin E. Washburn, is a brief account of the first fifty years 
of organized public health work in the state, beginning with events 
leading up to the establishment of the State Board of Health by the 
General Assembly in 1877 to the resignation of the first full-time 
state health officer, Dr. Watson Smith Rankin, in 1925. The 96-page 
text highlights the development of effective methods of treating and 
controlling then-prevalent diseases such as hookworm, typhoid, dip- 
theria, smallpox, and tuberculosis; particular emphasis is given to 
the appalling need for educating the public in health matters during 
those early decades. Perhaps this interesting little work will give 
impetus to a definitive study of the State Board of Health. A limited 
number of single copies of the book, which is bound in hardcovers 
and includes appendixes and indexes, will be available without 
charge from the Personal Health Division, State Board of Health, 

108 The North Carolina Historical Review 

New Gilead Church: A History of the German Reformed People on 
Coldwater, by the Reverend Banks Shepherd, has been written and 
published in an effort to organize and preserve the story of the 
church, thought to have been established in 1766. The book, which 
has been printed on a slick paper and bound in cloth, includes a 
number of interesting photographs. Twenty-two pages of the 63-page 
text are made up of appendixes, footnotes, a bibliography, and an 
index. The appendixes list the names of all the known pastors and 
their pastorates, members, cemetery records, and other important data 
from the church files. Copies of the book may be purchased at $5.00 
each from the publications committee of the New Gilead Church, 
Route 3, Concord, N. C, 28081. 

The McGraw-Hill Book Company has rendered a service to students 
of the post-Civil War era by reprinting in a two-volume paperback 
edition Walter L. Fleming's Documentary History of Reconstruction: 
Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational, and Industrial, 1865 
to 1906. In the words of the editor, "The documents presented are 
principally laws, state and federal, official reports, and political plat- 
forms; accounts of Northern men and foreigners living or traveling 
in the South; accounts of Southerners, white and black, ex-Confeder- 
ates and Unionists, Conservatives and Radicals. With the exception 
of the laws and political documents the material used consists mainly 
of accounts by persons who had first hand acquaintance with con- 
ditions in the South." This documentary collection was first published 
in 1912; in the intervening half century it has been supplemented 
but not superseded. Volume 1 (493 pages) includes a succinct and 
candid foreword by David Donald of John Hopkins University; 
Volume 2 (480 pages) includes a 22-page index. The volumes are 
priced at $2.45 each. The publisher's address is 330 West 42nd Street, 
New York, N.Y., 10036. 

American Intellectual Histories and Historians, by Robert Allen 
Skotheim, is a study of the history of ideas based on an analysis of 
selected works of American historians from William Bradford, leader 
of Plymouth Colony, to Eric Goldman, the most recent intellectual-in- 
residence at the White House. Although almost every American his- 
torian of note is mentioned briefly in the main text, in the footnotes, 
or in the "Essay on Historiographical Scholarship" (Appendix B), 
the author has chosen representative works of ten major seminal his- 
torians for in-depth analyses: Tyler, Eggleston, Robinson, Beard, 
Becker, Parrington, Curti, Morison, Miller, and Gabriel. At the con- 

Book Reviews 109 

elusion of the book, one is left with the realization that historians of 
ideas have been extremely rare on the American scene and, with 
the author, laments that present-day professionals have not accepted 
the challenge of Perry Miller and Arthur Lovejoy but instead have 
turned to topic specialization. With this work, which began as a 
doctoral dissertation, Professor Skotheim has made an important 
contribution to American historiography. The 326-page book, bound 
in hardcovers, includes a preface, two appendixes, and an index. The 
publisher is Princeton University Press, and the price is $6.95. 

Princeton University Press is also the publisher of Madison s "Ad- 
vice to My Country" based on the Whig-Clio Bicentennial Lectures 
delivered at Princeton in 1965 by Adrienne Koch. Using as a catapult 
the last message of James Madison, written seventeen years after he 
left the office of President of the United States, Professor Koch sur- 
veys Madison's life from his student days at Princeton to his death 
at age eighty-five. Under three classical headings of liberty, justice, 
and union, the author discusses Madison's views on church, state, 
and education, federal and state cooperation, civil rights, nullification, 
slavery, and state rights, all subjects which have been or continue to 
be of crucial importance in American history. In this little book (the 
main text consists of only 159 pages in large print) Professor Koch 
has done much to restore luster to the image of one of the greatest 
statesmen America has yet produced, and "little Mr. Madison" 
would have been pleased with the felicitous prose. At the end of the 
text there are 27 pages of notes, which constitute a historiographical 
essay, a bibliographical list, and an index. The price of the book, 
which is clothbound, is $4.50. 

Harper Torchbooks has issued two titles in its "Contemporary Essay 
Series." In Public Administration and Policy, the editor, Peter Woll, 
associate professor of politics at Brandeis University, has selected 
twelve essays to present a brief, informative, and engrossing analysis 
of the roles assumed by the three branches of the federal government 
in the origin, development, and continuation of the great American 
bureaucracy. The book includes a preface, introduction, and an edi- 
torial note preceding each essay, all written by Professor Woll. At the 
end of the collection the identities of the contributors and the sources 
of the essays (all previously published) are given. The editor has 
achieved admirably his stated aim of stimulating the interest of stu- 
dents and general readers "concerned with recent trends in govern- 
ment and public administration." This paperbound volume is de- 

110 The North Carolina Historical Review 

signated TB 1284, has 279 pages, and is priced at $2.75. The second 
title is American Constitutional Law: Historical Essays, edited by the 
general editor for the series, Leonard M. Levy. In a pleasantly didactic 
introduction, the editor, who is Earl Warren Professor of Consti- 
tutional Law and History at Brandeis University, leaves the impres- 
sion the Constitution is a marvelously incandescent milestone on the 
highway of history, always available for reference, but of little practi- 
cal value in negotiating the labyrinth of politics, business, and every- 
day living. For the vast majority who lack the time and interest to 
peruse one or more of the 380 volumes of Supreme Court decisions 
now available to find out what that 7,000-word document really says, 
Professor Levy has provided a very readable introductory study of 
the metamorphosis of the Constitution since 1789. The seven con- 
tributors represented are John P. Roche, Max Lerner, Robert J. 
Harris, Walton H. Hamilton, Robert G. McCloskey, Robert L. Stern, 
and Alpheus T. Mason. Each essay is preceded by an editorial criti- 
que, and a selected bibliography of articles for further reading has 
been included. This 247-page volume, which is numbered TB 1285, 
sells for $2.45. The address of Harper and Row, Publishers, is 49 East 
33rd Street, New York, N. Y, 10021. 

Editors Note: The historical news will be published in an enlarged 
Carolina Comments beginning in January, 1967. Carolina Comments 
will be published bimonthly as in the past, but its size will conform 
to that of the Review and Permalife paper will be used in both publi- 
cations. An index will be published each year. 

The decision to make the change was reached after much discus- 
sion by both the members of the Advisory Editorial Board and the 
heads of the divisions of the Department of Archives and History. 

Readers are invited to send news items for possible use in Carolina 
Comments. News should be sent promptly so that it will be published 
as soon as possible after events occur. Send news items to the Divi- 
sion of Publications, State Department of Archives and History, Box 
1881, Raleigh, N. C, 27602. 

The January issue of Carolina Comments will be delayed for a few 
days because of the decision to include news of the 1966 Culture 
Week meetings in this number rather than that for March. 

The North Carolina Historical Review is printed on Permalif e, a text 
paper developed through the combined efforts of William J. Barrow 
of the Virginia State Library, the Council on Library Resources, Inc., 
and the Standard Paper Manufacturing Company. Tests indicate that 
the paper theoretically has a useful life of at least 300 years. 


The Editorial Board of the North Carolina Historical Review is 
interested in articles and documents pertaining to the history of North 
Carolina and adjacent states. Articles on the history of other sections 
may be submitted, and, if there are ties with North Carolinians or 
events significant in the history of this state, the Editorial Board will 
give them careful consideration. Articles on any aspect of North Caro- 
lina history are suitable subject matter for the Review, but materials 
that are primarily genealogical are not accepted. 

In considering articles, the Editorial Board gives careful attention 
to the sources used, the form followed in the footnotes, and style in 
which the article is written, and the originality of the material and its 
interpretation. Clarity of thought and general interest of the article 
are of importance, though these two considerations would not, of 
course, outweigh inadequate use of sources, incomplete coverage of 
the subject, and inaccurate citations. 

Persons desiring to submit articles for the North Carolina Historical 
Review should request a copy of The Editors Handbook, which may 
be obtained free of charge from the Division of Publications of the De- 
partment of Archives and History. The Handbook contains informa- 
tion on footnote citations and other pertinent facts needed by writers 
for the Review. Each author should follow the suggestions made in 
The Editors Handbook and should use back issues of the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review as a further guide to the accepted style and 

AD copy should be double-spaced; footnotes should be typed on 
separate sheets at the end of the article. The author should submit an 
original and a carbon copy of the article; he should retain a second 
carbon for his own reference. Articles accepted by the Editorial Board 
become the property of the North Carolina Historical Review and 
may not have been or be published elsewhere. The author should in- 
clude his professional title in the covering letter accompanying his 

Following acceptance of an article, publication will be scheduled in 
accordance with the established policy of the Editorial Board. Since 
usually a large backlog of material is on hand, there will ordinarily be 
a fairly long period between acceptance and publication. 

The editors are also interested in receiving for review books relating 
to the history of North Carolina and the surrounding area. 

Articles and books for review should be sent to the Division of 
Publications, State Department of Archives and History, Box 1881, 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 


North Carolina State Library 



Spun? ?967 

The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Miss Marie D. Moore, Editorial Associate 


John Fries Blair William S. Powell 

Miss Sarah M. Lemmon David Stick 

Henry S. Stroupe 


Josh L. Horne, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

T. Harry Gatton Hugh T. Lefler 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 192J+, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may 
be obtained from Kraus Reprint Corporation, 16 East J+6th Street, New York, New 
York, 10017, or on microfilm from University Microfilms, 3 IS North First Street, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without 
special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department 
of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. Mailing address is Box 1881, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
27602. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina, 27602. 

COVER — To help observe the two hundredth anniversary of the found- 
ing of Salem, the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association held 
its 1966 Culture Week sessions in Winston-Salem, November 29 through 
December 3, 1966. Music was an important part of both the religious and 
secular activities of the Moravians in early Salem. Pictured on the cover 
are a flute, violin, cornet, and French horn, dating from the first days of 
the village and preserved in the Wachovia Museum. For an article on the 
contribution of the Moravians to the history of North Carolina, see pages 
144 to 153. Photograph by Edward Ragland, reproduced by courtesy of 
Old Salem, Inc. 

7^e %vtf6, gcvtolCtt* 
*i¥i4twUcal device* 

Volume XLIV Published in April, 1967 Number 2 



Charles L. Paul 

ASSOCIATION, Winston-Salem, December 2, 1966 


Ralph Hardee Rives 


Kenneth G. Hamilton 


Herbert R. Paschal 



Sir Patrick Dean 



Richard L. Watson, Jr. 



Paul H. Bergeron 


William S. Powell 



CUMMING, North Carolina in Maps, by Louis De Vorsey, Jr 214 

Morrison, Josephus Daniels: The Small-d Democrat, 

by I. B. Holley, Jr .215 

SlRMANS, Colonial South Carolina: A Political History, 1663-1763 

by Daniel M. McFarland 216 

Johnson, The Ndt Turner Slave Insurrection (Together with 
Thomas R. Gray's The Confession, Trial, and Execution 
of Nat Turner as a Supplement) , by James W. Patton 217 

Jones, Henry Newman's Salzburger Letterbooks, by Spencer King . .218 

KING, Georgia Voices: A Documentary History to 1872, 

by Phinizy Spalding 219 

De Vorsey, The Indian Boundary in the Southern Colonies, 

1763-1775, by William P. Cumming 220 

Eaton, A History of the Old South, by Herbert J. Doherty, Jr 222 

Sellers, James K. Polk, Continentalist, by Charlton W. Tebeau 223 

Galambos, Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence of a 

National Trade Association, by Robert W. Work 224 

Other Recent Publications 225 



By Charles L. Paul * 

The town of Beaufort was laid out and named on October 2, 1713, 
on land owned by Robert Turner, a local settler. 1 Though laid out by 
permission of the Lords Proprietors, the town was not incorporated by 
the Colonial government until 1723. 2 In the meantime, it had been 
established as a port of entry for the colony 3 and had been designated 
as the site of the courthouse for Carteret Precinct, which was estab- 
lished in 1722. 4 Moreover, at least thirty-nine town lots had been sold 
before the time of its incorporation. 5 

These early indications of Beaufort's growth and development, how- 
ever, were more apparent than real, for few, if any, of the first pur- 
chasers of lots made their homes in the town. 6 The history of Beaufort 

* Mr. Paul is professor of history at Chowan College, Murfreesboro. 

1 Permission for, the date of, and the men and circumstances connected with the 
laying out of the town are mentioned in most of the deeds for lots issued before the 
town was incorporated in 1723. See Carteret County Deed Books, Office of the Register 
of Deeds, Carteret County Courthouse, Beaufort, Deed Book D, 91-92, and passim, 
hereinafter cited as Carteret Deed Books; Craven County Will Books, Office of the 
Clerk of Court, Craven County Courthouse, New Bern, Will Book A, 13-51, hereinafter 
cited as Craven Will Books. See also Charles L. Paul, "Colonial Beaufort," North 
Carolina Historical Review, XLII (Spring, 1965), 139-152, hereinafter cited as Paul, 
"Colonial Beaufort." 

a Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, and 
Raleigh : State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by Stephen 
B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records], 1895-1914), XXIII, 334, here- 
inafter cited as Clark, State Records. For the text of the act of incorporation see 
Clark, State Records, XXV, 206-209. 

"William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: 
State of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), II, 454, hereinafter cited as Saunders, 
Colonial Records. 

* Clark, State Records, XXIII, 102. For the establishment of Carteret Precinct see 
David Leroy Corbitt, The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-19 US 
(Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1950), 74. 

5 Carteret Deed Books, A, 65, and D, 121, 277-278; Craven Will Books, A, 13-20, 23, 
28-32, 48-51. 

8 Twenty-two of the thirty-nine lots sold before 1723 were later resold by the town 
commissioners with the stipulation that a house must be built on them within a pre- 
scribed length of time, an indication that their first owners had not built on them. 
Carteret Deed Books, A, D, G, H, I, passim. The remaining seventeen lots were owned 
by Thomas Roper, Christopher Gale, James Moore, Maurice Moore, John Royal, 
Christopher Hale, John Clark, and James Davis. Carteret Deed Books, A, 65, and 
D, 121, 277-278; Craven Will Books, A, 13, 17-20, 48-51. With the possible excep- 
tion of James Davis, all of these men lived outside of the Beaufort area in the period 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

The "Hummock House" in Beaufort, which derives its name from the high ground or 
hillock on which it stands. The house is thought to have been built in the early 
eighteenth century and it seems most likely to be the "White House" which pilots of 
ships at sea sighted to guide them into Beaufort harbor. Photograph by Roy Eubanks, 
reproduced by courtesy of the Beaufort Historical Association. 

between the founding of the town in 1713 and its incorporation in 1723. Beaufort 
County Deed Books, Office of the Register of Deeds, Beaufort County Courthouse, 
Washington, Deed Book 1, 143, 193, hereinafter cited as Beaufort County Deed Books; 
C. Wingate Reed, Beaufort County, Two Centuries of History (Raleigh: Edwards & 
Broughton Co., 1960), 26-27; Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 209, 257, 316, 608; 
Craven Will Books, A, 20, 48-51. These considerations do not preclude the fact that 
Beaufort received settlers in this period, because the records for the sale of lots in 
the town are incomplete and settlers might have purchased lots without having their 
deeds recorded. That this did occur on occasion is abundantly evident from the existing 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 113 

throughout the Colonial period was one of very limited growth. In 
1737 John Brickell described Beaufort as "small and thinly in- 
habited," 7 and as late as 1765 a visitor in the town reported that it did 
not have more than twelve houses. 8 Though settlement became more 
substantial after 1765, 9 the town's number of taxables did not exceed 
one hundred during the Colonial period. 10 

Economic factors played a decisive role in determining Beaufort's 
smallness as a Colonial town. The nature of Beaufort's economy, in 
turn, was largely determined by the physical features and the natural 
resources of the surrounding area. An examination of these matters is 
essential to an understanding of the town's slow development. 

Colonial Beaufort was a seaport located on the North Carolina 
mainland about midway between the present states of Virginia and 
South Carolina. It was separated from the open sea by the waters of 
Core and Bogue sounds, which lay between the mainland and the 
islands of the Outer Banks. 11 Piercing the Outer Banks just two miles 
south of Beaufort, Topsail Inlet provided this port with access to the 
open sea. 12 Topsail Inlet was the most navigable of any of the inlets 

7 John Brickell, The Natural History of North-Carolina with an Account of the 
Trade, Manners, and Customs of the Christian and Indian Inhabitants (Dublin, Ire- 
land: Printed by James Carson, 1737), 8, hereinafter cited as Brickell, Natural History. 

8 "Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies, 1765, Part I," American Historical 
Review, XXVI (July, 1921), 733, hereinafter cited as "Journal of a French Traveller." 

•Whereas the town was reported to have had not more than twelve houses in 1765, 
at least nine new buildings were erected in Beaufort during the six years following 
1765. Carteret Deed Books, H, 70, 315-316, 332, 357, 445-446, 480; I, 246-247, 354-355, 

10 Taxables were white males over sixteen years of age and Negroes and mulattoes 
of either sex over twelve years of age. Saunders, Colonial Records, VII, 489. There 
are no available figures from the Colonial period which reveal the exact number of 
taxables living in Beaufort at any one time; in the opening decades of the nineteenth 
century, however, slightly more than one tenth of the population of Carteret County 
lived in the town. Compare A. R. Newsome (ed.), "A Miscellany from the Thomas 
Henderson Letter Book, 1810-1811, " North Carolina Historical Review, VI (October, 
1929), 398, hereinafter cited as Newsome, "Miscellany from the Thomas Henderson 
Letter Book"; and Charles L. Coon, The Beginnings of Public Education in North 
Carolina: A Documentary History, 1790-18^0 (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical 
Commission [State Department of Archives and History], 2 volumes, 1908), I, 20, 
486. Since the total number of taxables for all of Carteret County in 1774 was only 870 
(see Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, Beaufort, 1742-1843, 3 volumes, State Archives, 
I, 68, hereinafter cited as Vestry Books of St. John's Parish), it must be concluded 
that the number of taxables living in Beaufort did not exceed one hundred during the 
Colonial period. 

"According to present designations Core Sound extends no closer to Beaufort than 
the eastern tip of Harkers Island. In earlier years, however, Core Sound was con- 
sidered as extending to and including Beaufort harbor. See Beaufort County Deed 
Books, 1, 129-130, and passim. 

12 This inlet is now called Beaufort Inlet, but its general designation during the 
Colonial period was Topsail Inlet. See inset entitled "Port Beaufort or Topsail Inlet" 
on Edward Moseley's "New and Correct Map of the Province of North Carolina," in 
William P. Cumming, The Southeast in Early Maps (Chapel Hill: University of 
North Carolina Press, c. 1958), Plate 52; the same map is included also in William P. 
Cumming, North Carolina in Maps (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and 

114 The North Carolina Historical Review 

along the North Carolina coast, 13 having a low-water depth of twelve 
feet with approximately four additional feet on high tide. 14 Between 
the inlet and the town lay the body of water which provided Beaufort 
with "a safe and Commodious Harbor. . . ." 15 The depth of the water 
in this harbor ranged from five to seven fathoms. 16 

Beaufort was situated on a small peninsula formed by the North and 
Newport rivers, both of which were shallow and short, averaging less 
than five feet in depth and extending less than fifteen miles into the 
interior. 17 Core and Bogue sounds were also shallow but were longer, 
extending when considered together some sixty miles along the coast 
from a northeasterly to a southwesterly direction. As a passageway 
Core Sound was the most important inland waterway to the life of 
Colonial Beaufort in that it provided a water connection with Pamlico 
Sound and, hence, with the towns of New Bern, Bath, and Edenton. 
Nevertheless, Core Sound was a shallow and inconvenient passage- 
way, 18 and one of the most significant features of Beaufort's network 
of inland waterways was that none of them provided a convenient 
connection with the more productive interior. 

History, 1966), Plate VI, hereinafter cited as Moseley's "Map of Port Beaufort." See 
also Frances Latham Harriss (ed.), Lawson's History of North Carolina (Richmond: 
Garrett & Massie, Inc., 1960), 61-65, hereinafter cited as Harriss, Lawson's History; 
and Brickell, Natural History, 4. It was sometimes called Old Topsail Inlet. See 
Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 608. This inlet is not to be confused with the present 
New Topsail or Old Topsail inlets located near Hamstead. 

13 For a comparison of North Carolina's major inlets in the Colonial period see 
Charles Christopher Crittenden, The Commerce of North Carolina, 1763-1789 (New 
Haven: Yale University Press, 1936), 3-4, hereinafter cited as Crittenden, The Com- 
merce of North Carolina, in which the author comments that "Old Topsail was not as 
dangerous as most of the other inlets" in North Carolina and that "the number of 
wrecks occurring there was not large." See also Clark, State Records, XXIII, 684, in 
which Beaufort Inlet is described as "being very safe and Navigable for Vessels of 
Great Burthen. . . ." 

14 See Moseley's "Map of Port Beaufort." On this map, which is dated 1733, Beau- 
fort Inlet is described as having twelve feet of water on the bar. See also Harriss, 
Lawson's History, 65, and Brickell, Natural History, 4. In 1762 Governor Dobbs 
described it as having sixteen feet of water, but he did not specify whether this meas- 
urement was made on high or low tide. Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 608. A French 
traveler who visited the colony in 1765 commented that it had thirteen feet of water 
on low tide and that the tide did not rise above four feet. "Journal of a French 
Traveller," 733. In the light of this Frenchman's comments, it may be concluded that 
Governor Dobbs' measurement was made on high tide. 

15 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 684. 

16 See Moseley's "Map of Port Beaufort." 

17 No records are available revealing the average depth of water in these rivers 
during the Colonial period. The above judgments are based on recent measurements 
made by the United States Department of Commerce Coast and Geodetic Survey and 
recorded on navigation charts of the Beaufort area. 

18 In 1761 it was described as having "about 5 feet water." Saunders, Colonial 
Records, VI, 607. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 115 

The terrain of the area surrounding Beaufort 19 was almost completely 
flat, the elevation ranging from sea level to thirty feet above sea level. 
Such flat terrain provided poor natural drainage, except near the rivers, 
sounds, and creeks which facilitated it. This was especially true for 
the less sandy soils which were dominant in the area. Those soils which 
were sandy enough to allow internal drainage were in many cases 

!>oor in fertility. The result of these conditions was that most of the 
and, except for small areas of high, loamy soil located near the 
waterways, was poorly suited for cultivation. Though comparatively 
small in total acreage, there were numerous tracts of land along the 
edges of the waterways which were well suited for the production of 
a variety of crops. 20 

The early settlers in the Beaufort area found two main types of 
natural vegetation. On the tidal marsh, which was especially prevalent 
along the edges of North River, Newport River, Core Sound, and the 
Sound side of the Outer Banks, and which constituted at least 20 per- 
cent of the area under consideration, 21 coarse marsh grasses and 
rushes were virtually the only type of vegetation. On the rest of the 
soils different types of pine trees were dominant— on the more sandy 
soils west of Beaufort longleaf pines were the most numerous, while 
loblolly pines dominated the less sandy soils. 22 

Another geographical feature which affected the life of Colonial 
Beaufort was the presence of a very fine harbor at Cape Lookout 
located nine miles southeast of the town. It was unique among North 
Carolina harbors in that it was situated on the ocean side of the beach, 
and one did not have to navigate a treacherous bar in order to enter it. 
In 1756 Governor Arthur Dobbs reported that he had surveyed this 
harbor and that it had "27 [feet?] to 3 fathom water steep to the 
bank. . . ." He rather enthusiastically described this harbor as "the 
best and safest from Boston to the Capes of Florida, where a large 
squadron may lie as safe as in a mill pond. . . ." 23 

The economic activities of Colonial Beaufort were largely based 

19 In this article the terms area surrounding Beaufort and Beaufort area are in- 
tended to include all of that part of Carteret County that lies on Bogue Sound, Core 
Sound, Newport River, North River, and the creeks and bays draining into them. This 
designation is justified by the fact that in the Colonial period the people living on these 
waterways were drawn to Beaufort politically, geographically, and economically. 

20 S. O. Perkins and Others, Soil Survey of Carteret County, North Carolina (Wash- 
ington: United States Department of Agriculture, 1938), 8-34, hereinafter cited as 
Perkins, Soil Survey. See also Harry Roy Merrens, Colonial North Carolina in the 
Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, c. 1964), 37-49, 
hereinafter cited as Merrens, Colonial North Carolina. 

21 Perkins, Soil Survey, 9, and the accompanying soil map. 

99 Perkins, Soil Survey, 2; Merrens, Colonial North Carolina, 86-88, 185-193. 
88 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 598. 

116 The North Carolina Historical Review 

upon the exploitation of the natural resources which were present in 
the area surrounding the town. One of these natural resources was 
the marine life which inhabited the waters of the Beaufort area. As 
early as 1585 the great abundance of fish in the Core Sound area was 
noted, 24 and in 1709 John Lawson listed forty-one types of fish and 
eighteen types of shellfish found along the coast of North Carolina. 
Most of those which Lawson listed were described as being useful 
either because of their value as food or because of some by-product 
derived from them. 25 

The production of seafood for commercial purposes became an item 
in the economy of the Beaufort area very soon after the first settlers 
arrived. 26 Before 1709 red drum, a fish which Lawson described as 
being found in "greater Number . . . than any other sort," were being 
caught, salted, and exported to other colonies. 27 That the Core Sound 
area was a center of this drum fishing activity is indicated by the fact 
that by 1709 an inlet in that area was named Drum Inlet. 28 It was 
while fishing at this inlet sometime before 1711 that John Fulford, who 
lived near the Straits of Core Sound, 29 and two companions were 
deprived of their provisions and equipment by two Indians. 30 

Types of seafood other than red drum were exported from the Beau- 
fort area at a very early date. For instance, in 1710 Christoph Von 
Graffenried inscribed on his map of the Swiss and German settlement, 

24 See "The Tiger Journal of the 1585 Voyage," in David Beers Quinn, The Roanoke 
Voyages, 1584-1590: Documents to Illustrate the English Voyages to North America 
under the Patent Granted to Walter Raleigh in 158J+ (London: Hakluyt Society [Second 
Series No. CIV], 2 volumes, 1955), I, 188, hereinafter cited as Quinn, Roanoke Voyages. 
Among other things, this document describes the first landing made on the North 
American mainland by members of the second voyage of the Raleigh venture in 1585 
under the command of Sir Richard Grenville, At the site of the landing the members 
of this expedition caught "in one tyde so much fishe as woulde haue yelded vs XX. 
pounds in London." In his notes on this document Quinn comments that "Beaufort 
Harbour is the most likely location" for Grenville's first landing. Quinn Roanoke 
Voyages, I, 188n. 

* Harriss, Lawson* s History, 159ff . 

26 Settlers had arrived in the Beaufort area by 1708. See Paul, "Colonial Beaufort," 

27 Harriss, Lawson's History, 165. 

28 See Lawson's map, which is reproduced as the frontispiece in Harriss, Lawson's 

■ Minutes of the Craven County Court of Common Pleas and Quarter Sessions, 1712- 
1715, State Archives, Book I, 1, hereinafter cited as Craven Court Minutes. 

80 This incident was reported as follows : "And further John Fulf ord ; has to acquaint 
yr honour: that they where asleep att the Inlett: in the Night: There where three in 
Company: They went there a fishing at Drum Inlett: & there came two Indians as 
they found nex morning by there Track: on the Sand: They took with them one Matt: 
Two fishing lines: & one blanckett & one broad axe: & one stuff West: & two pr of 
Linned Drawes: & the Majert part of there provision." J. R. B. Hathaway (ed.), 
The North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register, II, 437-438, hereinafter cited 
as Hathaway, Genealogical Register. Though this report is not dated it is listed by 
the editor among "Items Relating to the Indian Troubles Out of Which Came the 
Indian War of 1711-12" and is preceded by a document dated 1704. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 117 

which he had planted at the present site of New Bern, that "fish, 
oysters, crabs, clams, and many other things" were brought to his 
colony from the Core Sound area. 31 

Though extensive records are lacking, it is evident that the expor- 
tation of seafood remained an important factor in the economy of 
Beaufort throughout the Colonial period. In 1765 it was reported that 
the Beaufort area had "fish and oisters ... in great plenty, . . ." 32 and 
in 1771 Governor Josiah Martin described Beaufort as "a small fishing 
Town. . . ." 33 The value which some of the inhabitants of the area 
placed upon this natural resource is seen in the fact that in 1771 
Jacob Shepard, one of Carteret County's representatives in the Assem- 
bly, 34 presented to that body a petition "from sundry of the Inhabitants 
of Carteret County therein praying a stop may be put to the hauling 
of seins in the said County." 35 The result of this petition was the en- 
actment of a law "to prevent the untimely Destruction of Fish in Core 
Sound, Bogue Sound, and the Straights in Carteret County." 36 Some 
indication of the importance of fishing during the Colonial period can 
perhaps be inferred from a record dated January 1, 1789, which shows 
that no less than 212 barrels of fish were exported from the town of 
Beaufort in the preceding six months. 37 

Though they were not' used for food, whales were plentiful along 
the coast near Beaufort and were an important economic factor in that 
area during the Colonial period. As early as 1681 the Lords Proprie- 
tors were informed that "there are many Whales upon the Coast of 
Carolina," 38 and in 1709 John Lawson commented that "Whales are 
very numerous on the Coast of North Carolina. . . ." 39 According to 
the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina issued in 1669, these mam- 
mals were the property of the Lords Proprietors. 40 On July 13, 1681, 
the Lords Proprietors granted the inhabitants of Carolina "free lease 
for the space of seven years ... to take what whales they can and con- 
vert them to their owne use. . . ." 41 That this lease was renewed in 

31 Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., Governor Try on and His Palace (Chapel Hill: University 
of North Carolina Press, c. 1955), opposite 32. 
83 "Journal of a French Traveller," 733. 

83 Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 33. 

84 Saunders, Colonial Records, VIII, 106. 

36 Saunders, Colonial Records, VIII, 392. 
39 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 803. 

37 Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers, Port Beaufort, 1784-1789, State Archives, 
hereinafter cited as Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort. 

38 Saunders, Colonial Records, I, 338. 

39 Harriss, Lawson's History, 162. 

40 Clark, State Records, XXV, 135. 

41 Saunders, Colonial Records, I, 338. 

118 The North Carolina Historical Review 

succeeding years and that some of the inhabitants of Carolina made 
use of this opportunity is shown by the record of a case brought before 
the general court of Albemarle County in 1694. This case involved 
Timothy Pead, Charles Thomas, and Mathias Towler; and its purpose 
was to determine which party should have legal possession of a 
whale. 42 

In 1709 whaling on the North Carolina coast was restricted to "a 
few People who live on the Sand-Banks" of the coast; 43 but in 1715 the 
Lords Proprietors opened the waters to "any New England men or 
others to catch Whales, Stergeon or any other Royal Fish. . . ." 44 This 
brought whalers from other colonies to North Carolina. 45 The only 
fee required for this whaling privilege was the annual payment of two 
deerskins to the Lords Proprietors. As years passed, however, this fee 
was increased to one tenth of the oil and whalebone produced from 
all whales caught. 46 Finally, in 1730, just after North Carolina became 
a royal colony, this fee was completely abolished for the sake of en- 
couraging the whaling industry. 47 

At first whaling activities on the North Carolina coast were confined 
to the processing of those whales "being found dead on the shore. 
. . ." 48 After 1715, when whalers started entering the colony from 
other areas, this situation gradually changed. By 1726 boats were being 
used in the local whaling industry, and a license granted to Samuel 
Chadwick in that year gave him permission to use three boats in his 
whaling activities. 49 Apparently the whales were spotted from lookout 
stations on the beach, after which the crews manned the boats, encoun- 
tered and killed the whales, and towed them back to the beach where 
the whalebone was saved and the blubber was used for oil. Cape 
Lookout, with its safe harbor on the ocean side of the beach, was an 
ideal location for such whaling activities. 

Even before its incorporation as a town in 1723, Beaufort had be- 

43 Saunders, Colonial Records, I, 419. 

43 Harriss, Lawson's History, 88. 

** Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 175-176. 

45 In 1715 John Royal, a mariner from Boston, purchased six lots in Beaufort. Craven 
Will Books, A, 48-51. This record does not connect Royal with the whaling industry, 
but it does not rule out the possibility that he was at Beaufort for that purpose. 
More positive evidence that the action of the Lords Proprietors brought whalers from 
other colonies to the area is the fact that during a gale in November, 1720, three 
sloops, all of which were en route from New England to North Carolina, were forced 
to seek shelter at Hampton, Virginia. At least one of these sloops was coming to the 
Colony "to procure a License to Whale." Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 397. 

48 This fee was increased sometime before 1723. See Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 

47 Saunders, Colonial Records, III, 99, 214. 

48 Harriss, Lawson's History, 162. 

49 Hathaway, Genealogical Register, II, 298. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 


■ s 

3 g 

.a o 

s^ o 


o < 

£ © 

«H 03 

g * 


*h 03 
O rn 

S * 

03 O 

£ o 

w o3 

s © 

*Q to 

H « 

«H ^ 
© co 


120 The North Carolina Historical Review 

come an important center of the whaling operations off the North 
Carolina coast. As early as 1714 a certain Captain John Records 
was fishing in the waters of the area, but the precise location of his 
activities at that time is unknown. 50 By 1722, however, "Capt John 
Records & others" were definitely "whaling on the Sea Coast of port 
Beaufort," and the extent of their success at that time can be de- 
termined from the fact that the tenth part of their catch, which was 
due to the Lords Proprietors, amounted to "Sixty Barrels of Brain 
oyl and Eight hundred wt. of Bone. . . ." 51 

As years passed whaling activities in the Beaufort area increased. 
By 1726 Samuel Chadwick, Ephraim Chadwick, Ebenezer Chadwick, 
and John Burnap had moved from New England to Carteret Precinct 
and were whaling in the waters of that area. 52 In 1728 the Lords Pro- 
prietors estimated that their tenth of the income from North Carolina's 
whaling industry during the four years prior to 1728 amounted to 
£800 sterling. 53 Evidence that the Beaufort area had by this time 
become the center of the Carolina whaling industry is seen in the fact 
that in 1728 William Little, Receiver General for North Carolina, 
deputized Ebenezer Harker "of Port Beaufort to receive the Tenth of 
all whale oyl and Bone Catched on the Sea Coast of this province." 54 
Two years later Little maintained that in the interim Harker should 
have received 67 barrels of oil and enough whalebone to be valued at 
£360 in North Carolina currency. 55 

After the abolition of the tax on whaling in 1730, the officials of the 
colony kept few records concerning the industry. Nevertheless, whal- 
ing continued to be an important economic activity in the Beaufort 
area. In 1755 Governor Dobbs in a description of Cape Lookout com- 
mented that it was a place "where the whale fishers from the North- 
ward have a considerable fishery from Christmas to April, when the 
whales return to the nOrthwd. . . ." 56 John Shackleford, who owned 
the beach between Topsail Inlet and Cape Lookout, sold two tracts of 

50 Vice- Admiralty Papers, 1697-1759, 4 volumes, State Archives, I, 24, hereinafter 
cited as Vice-Admiralty Papers. 

61 Vice-Admiralty Papers, I, 28. The date given in this record is "on or about the 
year 1721," but the action described in it is also said to have occurred while William 
Reed was acting governor. Since Reed did not assume that position until September 7, 
1722 (Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 460), and since Port Beaufort was not created 
until April 4, 1722 (Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 454), the year 1722 is probably 
the correct date. 

52 Hathaway, Genealogical Register, II, 298. For a history of the Chadwick family 
see Amy Muse, Grandpa Was A Whaler: A Story of Carteret Chadwicks (New Bern: 
Owen G. Dunn Company, 1961). 

53 Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 722. 

54 Vice-Admiralty Papers, I, 22. 

55 Vice- Admiralty Papers, I, 22. 

58 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 346. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 121 

that beach in 1757 to men connected with the whaling industry, Joseph 
Morse and Edward Fuller. Their deeds also gave them "privileges to 
Point Lookout Bay that is to have liberty to fish and whale in said Bay 
and also to have a landing at the said Point Lookout Bay." 5T That 
whaling continued in the Beaufort area throughout the rest of the 
Colonial period is shown by the activities of a certain David Wade, 
who during the Revolutionary War deserted Captain Enoch Ward's 
Core Sound company of militia and "entered with Capt. Pinkum to 
go a whaling. . . ." 58 

Forest industries were probably as important to the economy of 
Colonial Beaufort as was the fishing or the whaling industry. The 
Beaufort area was richly endowed with an extensive pine forest, and 
before the Colonial period ended this forest was being sawed into 
lumber and also was being used for the production of tar and crude 
turpentine, from which rosin, pitch, and spirits of turpentine were 
made. The extensive character of this pine forest was vividly described 
by a Frenchman who traveled from Beaufort to New Bern in the 
spring of 1765. His journey, he said, was "through a continual forest 
of pine trees." He spent the first night after leaving Beaufort at the 
home of a "good Quaker" who lived twelve miles from the town; and 
his only description of this Quaker other than "good" was, "He makes 
spirits of turpentine and rosin." The next day he continued his journey, 
which he described as "still the same thing today as yesterday, pine 
trees. . . ." He even commented that the road was "very Dangerous in 
stormy weather by the falling of the great dead trees." 59 

The forest industries of the Beaufort area were of three distinct 
types, one of which was the production of lumber. Before the Colonial 
period came to an end, there were at least two sawmills in the Beaufort 
area. One of these was located on Gales Creek, which flowed into 
Bogue Sound; 60 the other was on Black Creek, which flowed into 
Newport River. 61 These sawmills were run by waterpower produced 
through the utilization of dams, tide gates, and waterwheels. Logs 
were floated to the sawmills, which were located at the dams. 62 
Boards, scantlings, heavy timbers, and shingles were produced at these 
sawmills. Export records which apply specifically to the Beaufort area 

67 Carteret Deed Books, F, 456. 

58 Clark, State Records, XXII, 894-895. 

69 "Journal of a French Traveller," 734. 

w Carteret County Court of Common Pleas and Quarter Sessions, 1723-1789, 4 vol- 
umes, State Archives, III, 319. 

"Carteret Deed Books, H, 440-441. 

M North-Carolina Gazette (New Bern), June 6, 1778, hereinafter cited as North- 
Carolina Gazette. 

122 The North Carolina Historical Review 

are not available for the Colonial period, but they do exist for a short 
period just after the end of the Revolutionary War. These records 
show that during a period of ten months in the years 1788 and 1789, 
327,000 shingles and 161,500 feet of lumber of different types were 
exported from the town of Beaufort. 63 

Another forest industry of the Beaufort area was concerned with the 
production of crude turpentine and its related products, rosin and 
spirits of turpentine. Although these products were being produced in 
the colony as early as 1709, 64 they were not mentioned in the records 
of the Beaufort area until 1743. In that year Josiah Jones of Carteret 
County purchased a seven-acre tract of land on the northeast side of 
White Oak River and paid for it with twenty barrels of turpentine. 65 
Two years later, in 1745, Samuel Chadwick, who had moved to Car- 
teret County as a whaler, sold two tracts of land in that county but 
reserved the pine trees growing on these tracts of land for his own 
use. The deeds which he granted for these tracts stipulated that he 
was to have the "liberty to tend or work or make any better use of 
them [the pine trees] and bare of [f] or Carry of[f] from ye. sd. 
land any turpentine made of the sd. pines or any timber or rales got or 
made on the sd. lands. . . ." The price paid for one of these tracts of 
land was one hundred barrels of "good merchantable . . . turpentine. 
»66 There can be no doubt that by the 1740's the production of 
turpentine had become a factor in the economy of the Beaufort area. 

Crude turpentine was the oleoresin of longleaf pines obtained as an 
exudate from small incisions made in the trunks of the trees. Although 
the turpentine could be obtained during all seasons of the year, the 
peak of activity came during the spring and summer months when 
the oleoresin flowed most freely. 67 As the crude turpentine oozed from 

63 Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1789. In 1764 only 
222,150 shingles and 134,560 feet of lumber were exported from all of the Port Beaufort 
customs district. D. L. Corbitt (ed.), "Imports and Exports at Beaufort, 1764," North 
Carolina Historical Review, VI (October, 1929), 412, hereinafter cited as Corbitt, 
"Imports and Exports at Beaufort, 1764." See below for the area included in the 
Port Beaufort customs district in 1764. 

64 Harriss, Lawson's History, 100. 

65 Carteret Deed Books, D, 357. This turpentine was probably in its crude form, since 
the records of the Beaufort area appear to be consistent in referring to the distilled 
product as spirits of turpentine. 

66 Carteret Deed Books, D, 380, 395. 

67 The Frenchman who traveled from Beaufort to New Bern in the spring of 1765 
commented that "turpentine is only made in the summer time." "Journal of a French 
Traveller," 733. For the seasonal aspect of this industry as well as its utilization of 
longleaf pines, see Merrens, Colonial North Carolina, 86-87, 229; and Kenneth B. 
Pomeroy and James G. Yoho, North Carolina Lands; Ownership, Use, and Manage- 
ment of Forest and Related Lands (Washington: American Forestry Association, 
1964), 13, hereinafter cited as Pomeroy and Yoho, North Carolina Lands. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 123 

the tree, it drained down into a deep hole called a cup which had been 
placed near the base of the tree. Every three or four weeks the fluid 
was collected into barrels, which held 31/2 gallons and which weighed, 
when filled, 320 pounds. One man could tend approximately 3,000 
trees, which in the course of one season would produce about 100 
barrels of crude turpentine. This was usually sold in its natural form, 
the price of which in 1765 was eight shillings current money per bar- 
rel. 68 On occasions, however, it was distilled into spirits of turpentine. 69 
One barrel of crude turpentine would produce about three gallons of 
spirits of turpentine. The chief by-product of this distilling process 
was rosin which, among other things, was used in the production of 
varnish. 70 An indication of the extent of this industry in the Beaufort 
area during the Colonial period can be attained from the export rec- 
ords mentioned above. During a period of ten months duration in 
the years 1788 and 1789, 293 barrels of crude turpentine, 192 barrels 
of rosin, and 22 barrels of spirits of turpentine were exported from the 
town of Beaufort. 71 

The production of tar and pitch was also a forest industry in the 
Beaufort area during the Colonial period. In fact the Frenchman who 
journeyed from Beaufort to New Bern in 1765 commented that "there 
is . . . great quantities of tarr and pitch raised in this part of the coun- 
try; indeed more than in any other part of America." 72 To be sure, 
this comment was intended to apply to all of the eastern part of the 
colony, but the fact that it was made in connection with a description 
of the Beaufort area is significant. 

The manufacture of tar was more complex than the production of 
turpentine and its related products. It was extracted from the wood 
of pine trees, "generally of old fallen pines and of the branches and 
knotty parts," by heating this wood in a kiln designed for that pur- 
pose. The base of such a kiln was made of clay, was circular in shape, 
and sloped downward toward the center. The pine wood was laid on 
the base in a pile reaching a height of from ten to twelve feet and 
was arranged so that each piece extended outward and slightly up- 
ward from the center of the pile. The whole pile was then covered 

68 A contemporary account of the methods used in the production of crude turpentine 
is given in "Journal of a French Traveller," 733. See also Crittenden, The Commerce 
of North Carolina, 54; and Pomeroy and Yoho, North Carolina Lands, 13. 

69 "Journal of a French Traveller," 734. 

70 Crittenden, The Commerce of North Carolina, 54. Varnish was being produced in 
the Beaufort area by 1788. Export records for the period between July 1, 1788, and 
January 1, 1789, show that nineteen barrels of varnish were shipped from the town 
of Beaufort. Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1789. 

71 Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1789. 
" "Journal of a French Traveller," 733-734. 

124 The North Carolina Historical Review 

with an earthen wall, except for a small opening at the top where a 
fire was kindled. Small holes were punched through the sides of the 
kiln as needed for ventilation and the opening at the top was partly 
covered so as to confine the fire and to leave only enough heat to 
force the tar downward in the wood and eventually to the base of 
the kiln. A wooden pipe sloping downward from a small hole in the 
center of the base of the kiln carried the tar to a point approximately 
ten feet outside of the circumference of the kiln. A pit was dug at the 
outward end of this pipe, in which a barrel was placed to catch the 
tar as it drained from the kiln. The barrels used for tar held and 
weighed the same amount when filled as did the barrels used for 
turpentine. 73 

The production of pitch was much less complicated than the pro- 
duction of tar. It was made simply "by boiling it [tar] in an Iron 
ketle or making a hole in the Ground in which the tar is put and set 
on fire and burns itself into pitch." 74 

Export records for the years 1788 and 1789 show that 319 barrels 
of tar were shipped from the town of Beaufort within a period of ten 
months. 75 

Another economic activity of the area around Colonial Beaufort 
which was made possible, at least in part, by the trees of that area 
was shipbuilding. The tall, straight pines provided not only lumber 
for shipbuilding but were also ideal for masts; and the chief products 
of these pines— tar, pitch, turpentine, and rosin— were recognized as 
essential naval stores. Though pines dominated the landscape in the 
area, the "Sandy Islands and Sea Coasts on the Main" supported an 
abundant growth of cedars and live oaks which, as Governor Dobbs 
pointed out in 1761, were "excellent for Ship Timber being all 
crooked and very lasting. . . ." 76 Thus the Beaufort area was well 

73 "Journal of a French Traveller," 733-734. 

74 "Journal of a French Traveller/' 733-734. 

75 Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1789. No pitch was 
exported from the town of Beaufort during the period covered by these records. This 
does not mean, however, that pitch was not produced in the area, since these records 
cover such a short period and apply to such a small area. In fact, the statement made 
by the French traveler in 1765 that "great quantities of tarr and pitch [are] raised in 
this part of the country" indicates that pitch was produced near Beaufort. Undoubt- 
edly, some of this pitch, as well as the other naval stores produced in the Beaufort 
area, did not appear in the export records as it was used by the local shipbuilding 

The quantity of naval stores exported from the town of Beaufort was small com- 
pared to the quantity exported from all of the Port Beaufort customs district. For 
instance, in 1764, 30,403 barrels of tar, 3,303 barrels of turpentine, 3,721 barrels of 
pitch, 619 barrels of rosin, and 1,279 barrels of spirits of turpentine were exported 
from the Port Beaufort customs district. Corbitt, "Imports and Exports at Beaufort, 
1764," 412. 

78 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 606-607. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 125 

supplied with the natural resources necessary for a shipbuilding 

Evidence indicates that the residents of the Beaufort area made 
use of these natural resources at a very early date. As early as 1713 
George Bell contracted to instruct two servant boys, Charles Cogdell 
and George Cogdell, "in ye building of Vessells." 77 In 1732 William 
Borden moved from Rhode Island to the Beaufort area and entered 
the shipbuilding business, 78 and in 1752 there was a "ship yard" at 
Harkers Island, an island located a few miles east of Beaufort. 79 The 
occupations of "shipwright" and "ship carpenter" were used quite 
frequently to describe the trades of those who purchased property 
in the Beaufort area. 80 Though records are lacking which reveal the 
extent of this activity in the Beaufort area, Governor Tryon reported 
in 1767 that shipbuilding in North Carolina as a whole was "not 
considerable, the largest built vessel not exceeding two hundred tons 
burden." 81 The average size of the vessels built at Beaufort was very 
likely represented by one advertised in the May 15, 1778, issue of 
the 'North-Carolina Gazette-. 

The subscriber [Abiel Chaney] has for sale at the town of Beaufort, 
Carteret County, a new vessel on the stocsts, well calculated for a fast 
sailer, and will be completely finished by the 15th of May next. Her 
demensions are 55 feet keel strait rabber, 11 feet rake forward, 18 and 
a half feet beam, and 7 feet and half hold. 82 

The status which shipbuilding attained in the economy of the Beau- 
fort area in the years immediately after the Revolutionary War is 
revealed by the following statement made in 1810: 

The principal trade carried on here [in Beaufort] is Ship building in 
which they have acquired a very considerable reputation both on account 
of the solidity of the materials & the Judgment and Skill of their workmen 
as well in modelling as in compleating their Vessels. Live oak and Cedar 
are the timbers principally used but the stock is by no means so abundant 
as it has been. Some of the swiftest sailers & best built Vessels in the 
United States have been launch'd here, particularly the Ship Minerva 
a well known Packet between Charleston & Newyork. There are at present 
five Vessels on the Stocks two of which are ready to be launch'd. 83 

77 Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 172. 

78 William K. Boyd (ed.), "Some North Carolina Tracts of the 18th Century, II, 
William Borden's 'Address to the Inhabitants of North Carolina,' " North Carolina 
Historical Review, II (April, 1925), 189. 

79 Carteret Deed Book, E, 299-300. 

80 For example, see Carteret Deed Books, E, 299; H, 277, 292, 317. 

81 Saunders, Colonial Records, VII, 429. 

82 North-Carolina Gazette, May 15, 1778. 

^Newsome, "Miscellany from the Thomas Henderson Letter Book," 399. 

126 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The fact that Beaufort had won such a reputation by 1810, as well 
as the fact that its supply of cedar and oak was "by no means so 
abundant" as it had been, indicates that shipbuilding had been an 
established industry in the Beaufort area for a long time. 

A relatively large percentage of the Beaufort area consisted of 
tidal marsh. As noted earlier, this marsh land was especially pre- 
valent along the edges of Newport River, North River, Core Sound, 
and the Sound side of the Outer Banks; and it supported a natural 
growth of different kinds of grasses and shrubs suitable as pasture 
for livestock. During the Colonial period cattle, sheep, and hogs were 
permitted to use these areas as an open range. To be sure, many of 
these animals were raised for home consumption; but some of them 
at least were sold either at local or distant markets. Thus, the pro- 
duction of livestock was a factor in the economy of Colonial Beau- 

The existing records reveal little as to the number of livestock that 
subsisted in the Beaufort area at any given time during the Colonial 
period. In 1713 John Shackleford purchased a piece of land near 
the site where the town of Beaufort was soon to be laid out for "Three 
Gentle good Cows and Calves . . ."; 84 and before 1730 he had herds 
of livestock on the section of the Outer Banks east of Topsail Inlet, 
which he had obtained in 1723. 85 In 1745 Ephraim Chadwick sold 
"ten likely cows and calves, [and] two four year old steers" to John 
Clitherall. 86 There were cattle at Cape Lookout in 1747 when the 
Spanish attacked the town of Beaufort, and one of the arguments 
which Governor Dobbs used during the French and Indian War for 
the erection of a strong fort at Cape Lookout was that a fort would 
prevent the enemy from obtaining provisions by simply "shooting the 
Cattle on the Banks." 87 Dobbs estimated in 1764 that nearly seven 
eighths of the cattle of North Carolina had died because of a dis- 
temper brought from South Carolina, 88 but by the end of the Colonial 
period the number of cattle seems to have increased considerably. 
In 1776 Robert Williams, a resident of the Beaufort area, was con- 
cerned lest "the Numerous herds of Cattle on the Sea Coast . . . 
fall into the hands of the British; 89 and in 1777 Captain John Nelson 

84 Craven Will Books, A, 11. 

85 Carteret County Records, Grants, 1717-1724, State Archives, Book D, 4. 
89 Carteret Deed Books, D, 399. 

87 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 345-346. 

88 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 1029. 

89 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 742. For the location of Williams' residence see a 
sketch of the Harlowe Creek area reproduced in Milton Franklin Williams, The Wil- 
liams History Tracing the Descendants in America of Robert Williams of Ruthin, 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 127 

of the Craven County militia was sent to Core Banks to repel the 
enemy if possible "and by all means to remove the Stocks of Cattle & 
Sheep so as at every event to prevent their falling in the enemies 
hands." 90 The only indication available as to how many of the cattle 
of the Beaufort area were used for commercial purposes is derived 
from the export records for the town of Beaufort for the years 1788 
and 1789. In a period of ten months during these years four vessels 
left Beaufort carrying livestock to St. Barthelemy, Guadeloupe, and 
Hispaniola. 91 

Largely because of the scarcity of arable lands, the cultivation of 
crops in the Beaufort area was not an important economic activity dur- 
ing the Colonial period. Many of the early settlers spoke of their home- 
sites as plantations, but this designation seems to have been used in 
the loose manner common to the period. 

The first record of cultivated crops in the Beaufort area dates from 
the year 1713, when in the midst of the Tuscarora War a garrison sta- 
tioned at a certain Shackleford's plantation requested and received 
"Liberty to plant Corne on ye said plantation." 92 This corn, however, 
was grown for home consumption, a pattern of farming which seems to 
have been dominant throughout the Colonial period. The Frenchman 
who traveled from Beaufort to New Bern in the spring of 1765 com- 
mented that "there was here and there a small vilage and some little 
farms Dispersd up and Down where they rais nothing but Indian Corn 
(of which they make their bread) and peas." 93 Some of these peas 
were grown for export as is shown by the fact that one of the vessels 
which left Beaufort in the fall of 1788 bound for Martinique carried 
among other things 480 bushels of peas. This, however, was the only 
shipment of peas made in a period of ten months; one other product 
of cultivation which was shipped from Beaufort during that period 
was 200 bushels of potatoes, which were carried to New York. 94 The 
only other crop mentioned in the records of the area around Colonial 
Beaufort was rice. In 1776 Robert Williams described his business as 
that of rice planting. 95 

North Wales, Who Settled in Carteret County, North Carolina, in 1763 (St. Louis: 
Privately printed, 1921), 64-66. This sketch was drawn by John S. Williams, the son 
of Robert Williams, in 1864. See also Clark, State Records, XXII, 738, 745-746. 

60 Clark, State Records, XI, 775. 

61 Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1789. The sizes of 
the shipments are not given. 

ea Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 2. For the location of Shackleford's plantation see 
Paul, "Colonial Beaufort," 141-142. 

93 "Journal of a French Traveller," 734. 

** Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1789. 

85 Clark, State Records, XXII, 746. 

128 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The town of Beaufort was made "a port for the unloading and dis- 
charging Vessells" by an order of the Lords Proprietors on April 4, 
1722. 96 This town, its harbor, and Topsail Inlet, which connected the 
harbor with the ocean, served as a port of entry throughout the rest 
of the Colonial period. 

The order of the Lords Proprietors which made Beaufort a port 
affected only that area which could be served through Topsail Inlet. 
Since the inland waterways which led to this inlet did not extend 
into the interior or make convenient connections with rivers that did, 
the services of Port Beaufort were restricted to a small area lying 
along the south and east sides of Carteret Precinct. This area con- 
stituted the Port Beaufort customs district, and the offices of the 
customs officials for this district were established at the town of 
Beaufort. 97 

The size of the Port Beaufort customs district was greatly enlarged 
in 1730. In that year the Neuse River estuary, on which the town of 
New Bern was located and which until 1730 had been a part of the 
Port Bath customs district, was placed under the jurisdiction of the 
customs officials of Port Beaufort. 98 Since vessels bound for the Neuse 
River and New Bern entered North Carolina's inland waterways 
through Ocracoke Inlet, located approximately fifty miles northeast 
of Topsail Inlet, and at no point in their journey entered waterways 
leading to Topsail Inlet, the change made in 1730 added a second port 
of entry to the Port Beaufort customs district. Before 1739 this dis- 
trict was again expanded by the inclusion of the area served by 
vessels entering Bogue and Bear inlets. 99 

For fifteen years after the Neuse River estuary was included in the 

96 Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 454. 

97 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 169-171. There were usually two officials con- 
nected with the enforcement of trade regulations at each of the ports of North Caro- 
lina. The deputy naval officer's responsibilities were to keep records of imports and 
exports, make lists of vessels entering and clearing, and examine certificates of bond 
and registration. This officer was responsible to the naval officer of the colony, who was 
in turn responsible to the governor. The other official, the collector of customs, was 
responsible to the British commissioners of customs. His primary responsibility was 
to collect duties on imports and exports. See Crittenden, The Commerce of North 
Carolina, 39-41. Port Beaufort's first collector of the customs was Christopher Gale, 
who was appointed to this position when the port was established. See Saunders, 
Colonial Records, II, 561. The first record of the appointment of a deputy naval officer 
for Port Beaufort is dated 1724, when Governor Burrington appointed John Sparrow 
to that position. Carteret Court Minutes, I, 3. Port Beaufort did not have a comptrol- 
ler before 1767. Saunders, Colonial Records, VII, 535. 

"Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 169. 

99 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 374. These two inlets were located at the west end 
of Bogue Sound about twenty-five miles west of Beaufort harbor. The area served by 
these two inlets was small. Thus this inclusion was not as important to the Port 
Beaufort customs district as was the inclusion of New Bern. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 129 

Port Beaufort customs district the customs officials for the district 
continued to maintain headquarters at the town of Beaufort. As 
Governor Burrington pointed out in 1736, this arrangement caused 
quite a bit of inconvenience for masters of vessels trading at Neuse 
River. Writing to the commissioners of the customs in London in 
1736, Burrington asserted that the masters of such vessels had, since 
1730, "been forced to ride forty miles [on horseback] to enter and 
clear at Beaufort thro a low watery and uninhabited Country which 
after great Rains is not passable in many Days." He contended that 
the town of Beaufort was the most convenient place for the collec- 
tion of customs duties for vessels entering Topsail Inlet but that in 
his opinion Neuse River should not be a part of the Port Beaufort 
customs district. 100 Burrington's suggestion to exclude Neuse River 
from the Port Beaufort customs district was not heeded, but in 1746 
an alternate solution to this problem of having two distinct ports of 
entry in one customs district was provided by the appointment of an 
additional collector for the Port Beaufort district. Thomas Lovick, 
who had served as collector of customs for Port Beaufort since before 
1734, 101 was to continue "to reside at Core Sound, to receive the . . . 
Duty on the . . . Liquors and Rice, imported in such Vessel or Vessels 
which shall lade or unlade in Core Sound, or Bogue Inlet, . . ." while 
James Macklewean was to receive the same duties for "Vessels which 
shall lade or unlade in Neus River." 102 This arrangement was con- 
tinued until the death of Thomas Lovick in about 1759. 103 By that 
time the volume of oceanborne trade handled at New Bern on Neuse 
River had become much greater than that handled at Beaufort, and 
from then until the end of the Colonial period New Bern was the 
headquarters for the Port Beaufort customs district. 104 

The few customs records available for the Port Beaufort customs 
district during the Colonial period do not reveal the percentage of 

100 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 169-171. 

101 Vice-Admiralty Papers, I, 68. 

102 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 270-271. 

103 Thomas Lovick was a justice of the peace for Carteret County in 1758. Carteret 
Court Minutes, II, 237. His will was probated in the June, 1759, session of the Carteret 
County Court, at which time he was pronounced "Deceased." Carteret Court Minutes, 
II, 240. 

104 Dill cites the year 1739 as the approximate time when New Bern began its rise as 
a port town. Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., "Eighteenth Century New Bern: A History of 
the Town and Craven County, 1700-1800," Part V, "Political and Commercial Rise of 
New Bern," North Carolina Historical Review, XXII (January, 1946), 63-64. By the 
1750's the term Port Beaufort was at times used to refer exclusively to the area 
between Ocracoke Inlet and the town of New Bern on Neuse River, and many of the 
acts which were passed by the Assembly in the 1750's and the 1760's for facilitating 
Port Beaufort applied only to the area between Ocracoke Inlet and New Bern. See, 
for example, Clark, State Records, XXIII, 375-378. 

130 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the trade of that district that entered through Topsail Inlet and was 
handled at the town of Beaufort. 105 Customs reports are available, 
however, for a period of five years just after the end of the Revolu- 
tionary War which pertain exclusively to the port at the town of 
Beaufort. 106 These reports, along with reports for the rest of the Port 
Beaufort customs district, reveal that between July, 1785, and March, 
1790, less than 10 percent of the oceanborne commerce of the Port 
Beaufort customs district was handled at the town of Beaufort. 107 Pro- 
ceeding on the assumption that this percentage had not radically 
changed since the closing decades of the Colonial period, it must be 
concluded that the volume of commerce handled at the town of Beau- 
fort was quite small indeed. For instance, during the year ending 
October 1, 1764, only 127 vessels entered the Port Beaufort customs 
district, the great majority of which were sloops and schooners rather 
than the larger ships, snows, and brigs. 108 Furthermore, during the 28 
months that ended January 5, 1770, a total of 282 vessels with a 
tonnage of 9,909 entered, while 283 vessels with a tonnage of 9,931 
cleared the customs at Port Beaufort. 109 On the basis of these figures 
an average of only ten vessels each month entered the Port Beaufort 
customs district during the last decades of the Colonial period, and 
these ten vessels had an average tonnage of about 35 tons each. The 
town of Beaufort, with less than 10 percent of this trade, was quite 
insignificant as far as its contribution to North Carolina's oceanborne 
commerce was concerned. 110 

105 These records refer only to Port Beaufort. Since there were three distinct parts 
of that port after the 1730's, there is no way to determine which part these records 
concern. There are no records for Port Beaufort for the period before 1730, when it 
included only the area that could be served through Topsail Inlet. 

106 Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1790. 

107 Between July, 1785, and March, 1790, an average of slightly less than two vessels 
each month entered at the town of Beaufort. A similar number entered through Bogue 
and Bear inlets, while the number entering at New Bern averaged nearly fifteen 
each month. Thus, during the period under consideration, the town of Beaufort 
attracted only about 10.5 percent of the vessels that entered the Port Beaufort customs 
district. Those vessels entering at the town of Beaufort brought smaller amounts of 
taxable commodities, and probably smaller cargoes, than those entering at New Bern. 
For instance, the average amount of duty collected on each vessel entering at New 
Bern between 1785 and 1790 was approximately £18, while the average amount 
collected from each vessel entering at the town of Beaufort during the same period 
was only about £9. The average duty collected from vessels entering Bogue and Bear 
inlets during this period was about £6. On the basis of these figures one must conclude 
that the proportion of Port Beaufort's commerce that was handled at the town of 
Beaufort was well below 10 percent. 

108 Corbitt, "Imports and Exports at Beaufort, 1764," 412. 

109 Saunders, Colonial Records, VIII, 174. 

110 Even if Beaufort's proportion of Port Beaufort's commerce was larger at an 
earlier date, as was indicated by Governor Josiah Martin in 1773 (see Saunders, 
Colonial Records, IX, 636-637), its total volume was still quite small since the total 
volume of commerce of the Port Beaufort customs district was much smaller at that 
time. See Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 314; VI, 968. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 131 

The few vessels that traded at the town of Beaufort during the 
Colonial period came from a variety of ports. Before 1719 a certain 
Captain Stone rented Craney Island, later named Harkers Island, 
from Thomas Pollock for "100 weight of Cocoa. . . ." ni Stone's pos- 
session of this commodity indicates some trade at that time between 
the Beaufort area and the West Indies. Before 1731 three New Eng- 
land vessels were seized by the customs officials at Beaufort because 
of improper registration; 112 in 1734 the sloop "Middleborough," which 
had loaded at Boston, and the brig "George," which had loaded at 
Dublin, Ireland, brought cargoes to the town of Beaufort. 113 In 1747, 
in the midst of King George's War, a sloop from Rhode Island, the 
"King George," entered Beaufort harbor with a Spanish prize, the 
"Elizabeth and Annah," which had been captured at St. Thomas 
Island in the West Indies; 114 and in 1759 a vessel named "St. Andrew" 
arrived at Beaufort with a cargo from London. 115 Other ports, both 
on the North American continent and in the West Indies, were also 
represented. 116 

The items which these vessels brought to Beaufort were also varied 
but consisted mainly of those necessities that could not be produced 
from the natural resources of the Beaufort area. For instance, the 
cargo which was brought to Beaufort from London in the "St. Andrew" 
in 1759 and which was advertised for sale for "Cash, or Tar, Deer 
Skins, or Furr, Etc." consisted of the following items: 

London Cordage, Tinklingburghs, Irish Prizes, fine brown Cloth, Sail 
Twine, Worsted Stocking Breeches Patterns, red and black; ready made 
Cotton and Check Shirts ; strip'd double breasted Flannel Jackets ; Flannel 
and Check Drawers ; long and short Trowsers and Frocks ; white cup and 
Saucers, . . . Bowls, Mugs, Plates and Dishes, . . . Tortoise Shell Cups and 
Saucers, Teapots. . . . Glasses of all Sorts, Loaf Sugar, [and] Powder 
[sugar]. . . , 117 

Molasses, sugar, rum, and wine were especially important imported 

111 Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 388. For the original name of Harkers Island 
see Moseley's "Map of Port Beaufort"; and Paul, "Colonial Beaufort," 150n. 

112 Saunders, Colonial Records, III, 226-227. 

113 Vice- Admiralty Papers, I, 65-68. 

114 Vice-Admiralty Papers, III, 5, 17-21. 

li5 N0th. Carolina Gazette (New Bern), October 18, 1759, hereinafter cited as NOth. 
Carolina Gazette. 

118 In 1785 vessels came to Beaufort from the following American ports: Philadelphia; 
Charleston; Baltimore; New York; New London; Portsmouth, Virginia; and Middleton, 
Massachusetts. One vessel came from Rhode Island, but the specific port was not 
determined. Also, vessels came from the following West Indies locations: Guadeloupe, 
Jamaica, New Providence, St. Thomas, and Turks Island. Treasurer's and Comptrol- 
ler's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1790. 

117 NOth. Carolina Gazette, October 18, 1759. 

132 The North Carolina Historical Review 

commodities. 118 Salt, used for seasoning food and for the preservation 
of fish and meat, was also an important import. 119 

The items exported from Beaufort consisted mainly of the products 
of the area, fish, naval stores, livestock, and some vegetables. Most of 
the vessels carrying exports went either to the West Indies or to 
English Colonial ports on the North American continent. 120 

During the early years of Beaufort's history, a few observers of 
Colonial conditions looked upon the town with its relatively safe and 
accessible harbor as having the potential for becoming a commercial 
center. For example, in 1737 John Brickell considered Beaufort to have 
a pleasant prospect, 121 while six years earlier another observer had 
predicted that it would become the colony's "principal port." 122 As 
has been demonstrated above, however, Beaufort's anticipated com- 
mercial supremacy failed to become a reality. The Frenchman who 
visited the town in 1765 was not impressed by its economic achieve- 
ments, 123 and in 1773 Governor Martin commented that "there are no 
persons of condition or substance in it. . . ." 124 

Undoubtedly, there were many factors involved in Beaufort's failure 
to become an important commercial center. North Carolina's other 
ports were to a certain degree isolated from the ocean, 125 but the port 
at the town of Beaufort was isolated from the interior. No large river 
flowed down to it bringing the produce of a large section of the Coastal 
Plain and Piedmont, as was the case with Wilmington, Brunswick, 
New Bern, Bath, and Edenton. Furthermore, since it was located on 
a peninsula, the edges of which were dissected by many creeks and 
bays and the center of which was dominated by swampland, 126 land 
transportation of bulky commodities between Beaufort and the interior 
was almost impossible; and since other ports were more accessible to 

118 During the year ending in October, 1766, 27,490 gallons of rum and wine were 
imported into the Port Beaufort customs district. Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers 
for Port Beaufort, 1763-1789. During a period of one month in 1785, 1,032 gallons of 
rum, 1,000 gallons of molasses, and 985 pounds of sugar were imported at the town 
of Beaufort. Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 1784-1790. 

UG Clark, State Records, XI, 624; XXII, 933. 

120 These statements are based upon export records for the town of Beaufort during 
the years 1784-1789. See Treasurer's and Comptroller's Papers for Port Beaufort, 

121 Brickell, Natural History, 8. 

122 From "The Importance of the British Plantations in America" (London, 1731), 
71, as quoted in Francis L. Hawks, History of North Carolina from 1663 to 1729 
(Fayetteville: E. J. Hale & Son, 2 volumes, 1858), II, 558-559. 

123 He commented that "the inhabitants seem miserable. . . ." "Journal of a French 
Traveller," 733. 

124 Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 636-637. 

125 See Crittenden, The Commerce of North Carolina, 3-4. 

126 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 169. 

The Economy of Colonial Beaufort 133 

the interior, such transportation was most improbable. In this situation, 
the only area which Beaufort could effectively serve as a port was 
that lying along the edges of the short rivers and sounds which led to 
the town. With its services restricted to this small area of limited 
natural resources, Beaufort never had a large quantity of commodities 
for export nor a large market for which it could import. 

The limitation imposed upon the town of Beaufort by its isolation 
from the interior was clearly seen by Governor Dobbs soon after his 
arrival in the colony. On January 4, 1755, in a report to the Board of 
Trade in London on the "Wants & Defects of the Province," he com- 
mented that while Topsail Inlet was "a very safe Harbour with deep 
Water and no Bar . . ." it had "no navigable River" leading to it, and 
therefore "no considerable Trade . . . [could] be carried from 
thence. . . ." 12T 

As late as 1764 Governor Dobbs had nothing new to report to the 
Board of Trade concerning Beaufort's commercial capacity, 128 but in 
1766 efforts were initiated which, if they had been carried to comple- 
tion, would have given Colonial Beaufort a waterway connecting it 
with the interior. On November 13, 1766, Richard Cogdell, one of 
Carteret County's representatives in the Assembly, 129 introduced a bill 
for the construction of a canal connecting the head of Harlowe Creek, 
which flowed into the north side of Newport River approximately five 
miles above Beaufort, with the head of Clubfoot Creek, which flowed 
into the south side of Neuse River approximately twenty miles below 
New Bern. 130 The distance between the heads of these two creeks was 
less than ten miles, and an overland passageway between them was 
already in use. 131 A canal connecting these two creeks would not only 
have given Beaufort access to Neuse River and the interior, it would 
also have made Beaufort the port of entry for cargoes bound for New 
Bern, then the capital of the colony. Furthermore, it would have cut 
in half the distance by water from New Bern to the ocean. This canal, 
however, never became a reality during the Colonial period. The bill 
initiated by Cogdell was enacted into law in 1766, but instead of pro- 
viding that the canal be financed out of public funds, it was to be 
financed by "many Public Spirited Gentlemen [who] being willing 
to further a Work of such an interesting Nature to a Commercial 
Country, have offered to contribute to the same, by either paying in 

127 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 316. 
^Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 1028. 

129 Saunders, Colonial Records, VII, 342. 

130 Saunders, Colonial Records, VII, 368. 
M1 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 345. 

134 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Sums of Money, or sending their Slaves to Work in cutting the said 
Canal. . . . 132 Although the commissioners who were appointed to 
oversee the construction of this canal were instructed to "immediately 
employ Hands to work on the said Canal" as soon as they had "re- 
ceived any Subscriptions of Monies to carry on the same," 133 there is 
no indication that work ever began under the provisions of this act. 134 
Thus, Beaufort was compelled to remain commercially isolated from 
the rest of the colony, a port of only local significance throughout 
the Colonial period. This factor, more than any other, explains its lack 
of growth as a Colonial town. 

132 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 684-685. 

133 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 684-685. 

134 In 1783 the state legislature reenacted the law of 1766 with only minor revisions. 
Clark, State Records, XXIV, 538. In 1784 a new act was passed which allowed private 
contractors to assume the task of constructing the canal and gave them the right to 
charge a toll for its use. Clark, State Records, XXIV, 634. The canal was eventually- 
constructed under the provisions of this act. See Clifford Reginald Hinshaw, Jr., 
"North Carolina Canals Before I860," North Carolina Historical Review, XXV (Janu- 
ary, 1948), 1-15. 




Winston-Salem, December 2, 1966 


For the first time in its history, the North Carolina Literary and 
Historical Association held its annual meeting outside the city of 
Raleigh. To help observe the two hundredth anniversary of the found- 
ing of Salem, the various associations which comprise Culture Week 
agreed to hold their 1966 sessions in Winston-Salem. 

Papers presented at the December meeting are being published 
in this issue of the North Carolina Historical Review as has been the 
custom for many years. Only the address by Dr. William J. Murtagh 
of the National Trust for Historic Preservation on "German Architec- 
ture in the United States, with Specific Attention to the Moravians" 
has been omitted. The editors felt that the address without its ac- 
companying slides was so incomplete as to be meaningless to readers. 

Information on the business sessions and programs of Culture Week 
societies was included in the January, 1967, issue of Carolina Com- 



By Ralph Hardee Rives* 

I would like to begin by paying tribute to a distinguished North 
Carolina author who did not have a book in the 1966 competition for 
any literary award. I feel, however, that this is an appropriate time 
and place to express congratulations, appreciation, indebtedness, and 
love to North Carolina's "First Lady of Literature." She has been 
called "the Thomas Wolfe of our Coastal Plain." I am referring, of 
course, to Mrs. Bernice Kelly Harris, who in May, 1966, was the 
recipient of the North Carolina Award for the distinction she has given 
the literature of our state. Mrs. Harris is a writer of intelligence, com- 
passion, and artistry. "To Be Rather Than To Seem" is a motto that as 
appropriately fits her as it does her beloved state. 

No area in the world is more misunderstood or more misportrayed 
in literature and on the stage than the American South. Exaggerated 
caricatures of decadent, backward southerners who live pathetically 
in a past that never quite existed have too long been present in the 
works of many skillful but insensitive authors and critics from both 
the North and the South. Mrs. Harris writes with amazing objectivity 
and honesty but always with understanding and appreciation of the 
problems and personalities peculiar to her area of the United States, 
and her seven distinguished novels have acquainted thousands of 
readers with a whole region and a whole way of life that is unique 
and good and rich in tradition. And, on this occasion, I would salute 
Mrs. Harris for her personal contributions to the cultural heritage of 
North Carolina. 

Mrs. Harris— or "Miss Kelly" as she is affectionately known by those 
most closely associated with her— merits special recognition and com- 
mendation for the unselfish interest she has displayed in encouraging 
new writers to express themselves. Since 1963 she has taught a creative 

* Dr. Rives is associate professor of English at East Carolina College, Greenville; 
this report was given at the morning meeting of the Literary and Historical Associa- 
tion, December 2, 1966. 

Review of North Carolina Fiction 137 

writing course at Chowan College, and the results have been most 
significant and for "Miss Kelly" very rewarding. Several students have 
had the pleasant experience of seeing their works published in news- 
papers and magazines, and two novels are now in the final stages of 
preparation for publication. 

I wish to commend Sam Ragan of the Raleigh News and Observer 
for discovering and presenting a wide variety of new talent through 
his column, "Southern Accent," which was initiated in 1948. Mr. 
Ragan has given consistent encouragement to countless unknown 
writers, including many college students, by publishing and comment- 
ing on their works along with the work of artists who have already 
arrived. His recognition and praise of various college literary maga- 
zines has been especially noteworthy. 

I also wish to express my personal appreciation to Richard Walser 
of the University of North Carolina at Raleigh for his distinguished 
contributions toward making the inhabitants of this state aware of 
their cultural and literary history. No other single person has done 
more to preserve the story of our literati than Professor Walser, and 
his various volumes and anthologies provide within themselves an 
almost sufficient bibliography for a college course in North Carolina 

During the past two years, in the month of August, Bernadette 
Hoyle has sponsored the Tar Heel Writers' Roundtable in Raleigh 
with an attendance at each annual meeting of approximately one 
hundred writers of varying degrees of experience, interest, and ability. 
The talent displayed and the effervescent enthusiasm of the students 
enrolled in the classes reflect the definitely favorable climate for crea- 
tive writing in North Carolina at this time. Mrs. Hoyle is to be 
saluted for her excellent organization of the various sessions and for 
recruiting each year a noteworthy "faculty" drawn from both within 
and outside the boundaries of the state. Members of the roundtable 
hear successful writers discuss their methods; they learn special writ- 
ing techniques, share their problems, meet outstanding authors and 
critics and, most important of all, gain inspiration. 

I would also like to pay tribute to those men and women in North 
Carolina who are responsible for the numerous writers clubs and 
creative writing groups that have been organized on practically every 
college and university campus and in many towns and cities. 

The books which were entered in the 1966 Sir Walter Raleigh com- 
petition varied greatly in length, style, purpose, and appeal. There 
were a few works by authors whose names are well known throughout 

138 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the United States and even in foreign countries, and there were first 
works by interesting, talented, and promising newcomers. There were 
several books by authors from the academic world, several written by 
full-time journalists, and many which were penned by housewives and 
others of various occupations. Some of the books were published by 
nationally known publishing houses, while many others were pri- 
vately printed. Some of the books were geared toward the tastes and 
interests of adults while a very significant number were oriented 
toward the ever-increasing juvenile reading market. The works tended 
to fall largely within the areas of the novel, incidental stories, and 

The dearth of creative works in the fields of drama and the short 
story gives some reason for concern and is perhaps an indication that 
we need to give more impetus toward playwriting and short story 
writing in our creative writing classes and clubs. Surely at no time in 
our history have there been more significant issues or themes to stimu- 
late the writing of successful comedies or tragedies, historical plays or 
folk plays. As an old "ham" myself, I tremble at the thought of North 
Carolinians not producing a single play— not even a bad play, which 
after all is better than no play at all— in 1966. 

The themes of many of the books and poems published in 1966 
were specifically related to North Carolina, a fact which does not at 
all disturb me, as it apparently does some critics, for I believe in the 
truth and wisdom of the old adage "know thyself." If we as a homo- 
genous group of Americans who have the unique heritage of being 
Carolinian and southern would be able to think and act intelligently 
beyond our borders— and we must— we must first be able to understand 
clearly and appreciate that which is within our borders. The wide 
diversity in topics, interests, and media of communication, the diver- 
sity of our own geography, the increasing cosmopolitanism of our 
native writers, and the healthy influence of our "adopted" writers who 
have made North Carolina their home should prevent us from be- 
coming too inbred, too restricted, or too narrow in vision and scope. 
I am pleased that so many North Carolina writers want to write about 
this state and I say bravo to them! I cannot imagine a Virginian not 
writing about Virginia or a Texan not somehow bringing Texas into 
his work, or a true New Yorker not using Manhattan for a locale. Why, 
then, should we be apologetic about our interest in our state? 

It is a popular pastime nowadays to decry the backwardness, the 
ignorance, the unhappiness, and the tremendous poverty of North 

Review of North Carolina Fiction 139 

Carolina in particular and the South in general. We are portrayed by 
many critics as a people who are unlettered, untutored, and com- 
pletely unaware of the world beyond our borders and incapable of 
understanding most of what occurs within our borders. The story of 
the South, to many of our critics, is a tragic, unfortunate chapter in 
the annals of American history. While on a lecture tour of Great 
Britain in 1962, in which I stressed the unique social and cultural 
ties which unite that nation with our section, I was told by one 
Englishman, "I am glad to hear a southern viewpoint; our last speaker 
from America came from Ohio and said that she was ashamed to be 
an American because of the South." 

I do not consider myself either a professional southerner or pro- 
fessional Carolinian, though I am proud of being both southern and 
Carolinian. I am proud of the history of the South and of the history 
of North Carolina, and I happen to be a defender, not necessarily 
of the status quo, but of our unique heritage and tradition. I am not, 
of course, blind to our faults and shortcomings or to the dark pages 
in our history but my study of history in general reveals similar faults 
and mistakes and dark pages in the history and development of any 
region or culture or civilization. 

Thad Stem, Jr., the well-known essayist, journalist, poet, and critic, 
of Oxford, a master in the use of the metaphor and simile, is an author 
who is unashamedly proud of his state and its history. In his Spur 
Line, with its unique arrangement of thirty-eight poems and an equal 
number of prose selections, he not only reflects distinctive artistry with 
his pen but interprets with romantic nostalgia images of North Caro- 
lina several decades ago. He does, indeed, take rural and small-town 
manners and customs, recolors and revitalizes what is often considered 
commonplace, and makes them glowing and fresh. 

Stem possesses a keen insight into both the logical and emotional 
behavior of man, and the society of which he writes and with which 
he is so obviously familiar is not an impersonal, cynical, bitter, revolt- 
ing society. Much of what he describes is symbolic, and he uses many 
effective historical allusions and much impressive imagery. In an age 
of bizarre beatnik literature, his work is refreshingly unaffected with- 
out being naive, uncomplex without being obvious. Thad Stem's work 
reflects wisdom and humility. With extraordinary deftness he tells of 
the lazy Wednesday afternoons he has known in his hometown. He 
picturesquely describes the magic quality of the old-time trains. He 
comments on such diverse topics as superstitions, the school celebra- 

140 The North Carolina Historical Review 

tions on Sidney Lanier's birthday when he was a child, Sam Jones, the 
famous Methodist evangelist; and he recalls the eccentricities of many 
small town characters who are familiar stereotypes found throughout 
eastern Carolina. 

Though there is a universal quality and appeal about Spur Line, the 
reader is ever aware of the overtones of the author's native Oxford in 
Granville County. When he candidly declares that he is "one of a few 
middle-aged Americans who still lives on the street on which he was 
born," one readily realizes that this fact contributes in no small way to 
the perspective of the work. 

Another native North Carolinian who hails from "the same neck of 
the woods" (to be colloquial) as Mr. Stem is the talented, versatile, 
and quite youthful Reynolds Price. Mr. Price won national attention 
and acclaim a few years ago with his movingly tender and beautifully 
phrased masterpiece, A Long and Happy Life. His 1966 publication, 
A Generous Man, though perhaps not altogether as outstanding in 
merit as its predecessor, brought further distinction to Mr. Price be- 
cause of its precision of language and insight into human character. As 
Granville Hicks observed in the Saturday Review, the book is "rich, 
original and profound." 

Ben Haas of Raleigh brought forth The Last Valley, a skillful work 
of some length which is worthy of praise and note. Set in a beautifully 
wooded valley high in Appalachia, with "its forests and waters still 
untouched by the bulldozers and dredgers," The Last Valley is con- 
cerned with character in conflict and it reflects the same keen talent 
and ability as Mr. Haas' earlier novel, Look Away, Look Away, and is 
not nearly so controversial in theme. 

Professor Fred Chappell of the University of North Carolina at 
Greensboro published his second novel, The Inkling, a book which 
reflects the same imaginativeness and realism which characterized his 
It Is Time, Lord, published three years ago. This new work reveals a 
distinguished ability to create "a structure of great subtlety and com- 
plexity that reflects, as a microcosm, passions and fears and dreams 
that are universal." 

Another young writer whose prose has captured the attention of 
distinguished reviewers, is Heather Ross Miller, an Elizabethtown 
housewife whose published works include articles, stories, and two 
novels in addition to poetry. Her second novel, this year's Tenants of 
the House, is a book filled with rich symbolism, originality, and con- 

Review of North Carolina Fiction 141 

Peggy Hoffmann of Raleigh, a North Carolinian by adoption, pro- 
duced two works in 1966, both of which reveal her as a serious, 
dedicated, and talented writer. A Forest of Feathers, her first novel, 
treats with poignancy, sensitivity, and deep perception the troubled 
mind and heart of an unforgettable— yet nameless— girl who is mentally 
ill. Mrs. Hoffmann tells the story with honesty, imagination, and bitter 
humor, but, most of all, with tender pathos and understanding. Her 
versatility as an author is further evidenced in her book Shift to High!, 
a juvenile work which tells of the exciting escapades of three teen-age 
boys on an automobile excursion in North Carolina, a journey which 
turns out to be, in reality, a journey into maturity. 

Manly Wade Wellman of Chapel Hill, indisputably one of the state's 
most prolific authors, published Battle of Bear Paw Gap, the third in 
a trilogy of historical novels of the Revolutionary period aimed largely 
toward young people. This latest work is full of dangerous adventures, 
brave frontiersmen, and Indians involved in the establishment of Bear 
Paw Gap in the North Carolina mountains. 

A dramatic horse story, entitled A Dash of Pepper, written by 
Thelma Harrington Bell, was vividly enhanced by a series of dis- 
tinguished drawings. Mrs. Bell is the author of six other works of 
juvenile fiction. 

Lewis W. Green's The Year of the Swan is an original Chinese fable 
also enhanced by eight original woodcuts and bamboo-designed bor- 
ders around the pages of type. , 

The Cape Fear area furnished the inspiration for Ethel Herring's 
booklet, About Turtles and Things— Near Fort Caswell. This collection 
of autobiographical stories relates some of the things which the author 
and her family have learned over two decades about their favorite 
vacation spot. 

Three other books which further demonstrate the inspiration North 
Carolinians receive from the history, geography, and people of their 
state, is evidenced by William S. Powell's North Carolina, Richard 
Walser and Julia Montgomery Street's North Carolina Parade: Stories 
of History and People, and Annie Sutton Cameron's booklet on Hills- 
borough and the Regulators. 

Mr. Powell's book, effectively illustrated with a variety of photo- 
graphs, is a patriot's tribute to the Old North State and is quite 
understandably subjective in content. It is readable and it is worth 
reading. For friends living out of state or out of this country I recom- 
mend this book as a possible gift. 

142 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Walser-Street anthology of North Carolina stories is oriented 
toward the interest level of the intermediate grade student who may 
wish to learn more of our state history. The youthful reader will make 
the acquaintance of such exciting and diversified individuals as Vir- 
ginia Dare, Blackbeard, Daniel Boone, Flora Macdonald, Andrew 
Johnson, Buck Duke, Thomas Wolfe, and Clarence Poe. 

Miss Cameron's account of Colonial Hillsborough, "capital of the 
Carolina back country," sheds new insight and knowledge into the 
events surrounding the Regulator movement. It is the type of informa- 
tive, readable, documented booklet that should be written about every 
historic town in North Carolina. 

Another book aimed largely toward the reading interests of teen-age 
boys is Robinson Barnwell's Head Into the Wind. Mrs. Barnwell, a 
former high school teacher, possesses not only exceptional writing 
ability but an unusual understanding and empathy for the problems 
and loneliness of adolescence. She has written with poignancy of the 
emotional maturity of a thirteen-year-old lad forced to adjust to the 
death of his father. 

It is significant that numerous North Carolina writers have pro- 
duced and are producing books of poetry. Not all the poems are great; 
in fact, some of them are not even good, by critical standards, but they 
are poems and they are very real expressions of a very real creative 
urge. Many of the lyrics are marked by a freshness of theme, meticu- 
lous craftsmanship, and a poetic honesty. 

The poems in Dorothy Bell Kauffman's book, The Inheritance of My 
Fathers, recall the history, folklore and spirit of southeastern North 
Carolina and recreate the Cape Fear country of a bygone era. For 
All the Lost and Lonely, by Edward Dixon Garner, is a delightful col- 
lection of singing verses that disclose a love of nature and intimate 
acquaintance with the mountains and mountain people. Sallie Nixon's 
booklet, Surely Goodness and Mercy, contains poems which are, in the 
words of the author, "a simple testament of an abiding faith in God, 
and a growing one in man." Victor R. Small, a medical doctor, has 
produced Over My Shoulder, his second book of poetry, which also 
contains two prose tales, a work which reveals irony, romance, wry 
humor, all with a nostalgic charm and perceptive depth. Betty V. 
Stoffel's second published work, Splendid Moments, is admittedly 
written from a woman's point of view and discloses keen spiritual in- 
sights and compassion fused into "a poetic profile of human values and 

Review of North Carolina Fiction 143 

emotions." Poems' Words of Wisdom, by Milford R. Ballance, contains 
some twenty-one poems ranging over a wide spectrum of themes, and 
Leona Hayes Chunn's Rouse With the Dawn is a collection of verse 
which prompted Archibald Rutledge to declare: "Here we have to 
deal with one of the rarest of human beings— a true poet." 

Having had the unique opportunity to become acquainted with 
these various works of North Carolina authors this year, I must admit 
to a general feeling of optimism. And, because of this optimism, I 
wish to conclude with a prediction. 

Among the classes which I teach from time to time in my role as a 
professor of English is a survey course in American literature wherein 
the content is selected from the writings of the earliest Puritans of the 
seventeenth century through the works of Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, 
Emerson, and Lowell. In addition to learning something about those 
writers and their respective contributions to literature, the students 
also learn that at certain specific periods in our history there were 
cultural centers where the intellectual climate produced a "colony" 
or "school" of distinguished writers whose literary works reflected 
and affected the temper of the times. Philadelphia, Concord, Cam- 
bridge, and Charleston were such centers. I always make a point of 
explaining to my students why North Carolina and the South produced 
so few writers during those periods, why the intellectual climate here 
produced statesmen rather than writers, and why orators instead of 
literary figures flourished. 

I predict with absolute certainty that students in the twenty-first 
century, whether in Idaho, Alaska, England, Austria, Australia, or 
even on the moon, will read in their survey courses of American litera- 
ture that during the mid-twentieth century North Carolina— as a state 
—was a literary center with a school or colony of writers whose works 
increased in importance and value with the passage of years. And 
those students will read of, about, and from Paul Green, Thomas 
Wolfe, Bernice Kelly Harris, Betty Smith, Sam Ragan, Thad Stem, 
Jr., LeGette Blythe, Glenn Tucker, Richard Walser, and many, many 
others. And the sophomores and juniors of that distant day will, upon 
reading the works of these writers, find their horizons broadened, their 
knowledge increased, their faith in humanity restored or strengthened, 
and their appreciation of southern civilization sharpened, while they 
are learning to develop their own personalities and to find their own 


By Kenneth G. Hamilton* 

The founding fathers of the United States chose for its official motto 
a Latin phrase, E pluribus unum, thereby asserting their faith that 
out of the former thirteen American colonies they would forge one 
single, truly united nation. Similarly every commonwealth which 
forms a part of this nation is in its turn made up of many communities, 
each with individual characteristics whereby it enriches the life of 
the whole. That fact has provided the guidelines for this paper. It will 
endeavor to stress some of the distinctive features of Winston-Salem, 
a community, which in its formative years, at least, certainly was 
in many ways unique in North Carolina. It will also suggest how the 
community thus fashioned has made its contribution through the years 
to the state of which it is a part. 

Many persons are familiar with the series of volumes published suc- 
cessively by the North Carolina Historical Commission and the State 
Department of Archives and History under the title Records of the 
Moravians in North Carolina. They will agree that Winston-Salem 
has an almost embarrassing wealth of archival material for the his- 
torian to draw upon. The manuscripts date back to the very beginning 
of this city, then called "Salem," and portray a unique settlement in 
the rolling hills of the Piedmont district. 

This community was set apart from others from its very inception. 
It did not originate like so many of its neighbors through the coming 
together of numbers of people, chiefly strangers to each other, who 
located at a given spot without prior design and then formed a town 
out of the varied elements which were available to them. 

January 6, 1766, marked the actual beginning of Salem. But at least 
as early as November, 1750, leading Moravians in Herrnhut, Germany, 
had weighed the pros and cons of establishing a colony in North 

* Since retiring from the executive board of the Northern Province of the Moravian 
church and from his position as provincial archivist, Bishop Hamilton has resided in 
Winston-Salem, where he devotes full time to work on the Records of the Moravians 
in North Carolina; Bishop Hamilton spoke at the morning meeting of the Literary and 
Historical Association, December 2, 1966. 

The Moravians and Wachovia 145 

The title page of the "Brotherly Agreement" of the Salem Moravian Congregation. 
This document contains the principles of conduct agreed to by its members in 1780. 
Photograph supplied by the author. 

Carolina on land which John, Lord Carteret, Earl of Granville, had 
offered to sell them on advantageous terms. Before deciding to do so, 
however, the church fathers commissioned their chief representative 
in America, Bishop August Gottlieb Spangenberg, to explore the terri- 
tory in question to determine whether he could find as much as 100,- 
000 acres of land suitable for their purposes. Ultimately Spangenberg 
chose an area in what is now Forsyth County. At his suggestion the 
Moravians named their tract "die Wachau"--or "the Meadowland of 

146 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the Wach"— because they thought its watercourses made it resemble 
an ancestral estate of the Zinzendorfs in Austria. The name became 
anglicized as "Wachovia." 

On August 7, 1753, the deeds to this large tract were signed in Lon- 
don, and on the seventeenth of November that same year the first 
Moravian settlers came to North Carolina. Before they left Pennsyl- 
vania detailed plans had been evolved for parceling out most of 
Wachovia to members of the church who, it was hoped, would be able 
to win a livelihood by farming. In the center of the area, however, a 
town was to be built, where crafts and trades would be cultivated and 
business fostered. Nearly thirteen years passed following the arrival 
of the first colonists before the authorities of the church agreed on a 
site for the central community. In the interval drafts had been made 
and rejected and a final plan for the new town adopted, before an ax 
bit into the first tree on its site. The direction of the streets, their 
various widths, the size of the individual town lots, provisions for a 
central square, around which the most important community struc- 
tures were to cluster— all had been agreed upon in the period preced- 
ing work on the first house in Salem. Here then was an authenticated 
instance of town planning in the 1760's. 

Not merely the physical form of the projected community had 
been predetermined, but steps had been taken to assure that all 
activities would be carried on in it which the church considered basic 
to its welfare. The cultivation of religious life had been provided for 
as a matter of course, but also the presence of artisans to labor in 
essential crafts, together with other individuals dedicated to the school- 
ing of the children of the settlement; a doctor to care for its health; 
also men capable of directing the musical activities of the community, 
a phase of its life upon which the early Moravians laid exceptional 
stress. Thus Salem owed the first facet of its unusual character to its 
status as a church-related community. 

Furthermore— and this obviously was a most important matter— even 
after the community came into being, when by death or for any other 
reason it lost an individual who possessed some specialized skill, the 
church could draw upon its membership in Pennsylvania or Europe 
to fill the vacancy thus created. 

Due to such advantages Salem— this name too had been selected 
in Europe— enjoyed from its earliest period an unusual degree of self- 
sufficiency within what was soon to become the state of North Caro- 
lina. Handwrought fixtures of wood or metal, tools, pieces of furniture, 

The Moravians and Wachovia 147 

guns, musical instruments, and many other items fashioned by early 
Moravians in Salem can still be found there, where they were pre- 
served and treasured through the years. The church diary records that 
when President Washington visited in Salem in 1791 he inspected the 
industries and other establishments of the town and expressed his 
pleasure especially at the way in which the waterworks were utilized. 
Indeed, early Salem was able to supply a wide area about it with the 
products of its crafts, particularly its pottery. The Moravians also 
played a part in meeting the medical needs of the whole countryside. 
After the turn of the eighteenth century Salem offered educational 
benefits to non-Moravian children— mainly girls. These latter were 
cared for in a boarding school, established in 1802. 

Yet another quality distinguished Salem in its early years: its people 
were one in their religious beliefs and objectives. To say this is not 
to attempt to deny that strong religious forces were evident in the life 
of other North Carolina communities of this period. But Salem came 
into being as a closed Moravian settlement. In matters of the faith 
its founders without exception were united by common religious 
views. They called each other "brother" and "sister," and these were 
no empty terms. To live as a brotherhood of men and women who 
sought to have their lives conform to the will of their Saviour in every 
respect had been the main motive for their acquiring so large a tract 
in the New World and for their locating their town in its center. 
Thus they hoped to be free from all interference in their chosen way 
of life, a privilege they had sought for in vain in Europe. 

To promote and deepen devotion, the community was organized 
into so-called "choirs" or divisions. Each group— children, older boys, 
older girls, single men, single women, married couples, widowers, and 
widows— had separate leaders, separate devotional exercises, separate 
instruction, though united congregational worship also had its recog- 
nized place in the activities of the community. The single men, the 
single women, and in some years the widows too shared as much of 
their daily affairs as possible, each group occupying a "choir house" 
of its own. When death called away a member of the community, his 
body was laid to rest with others of his choir who had preceded him, 
not with members of his family. This practice, incidentally, is still 
followed in the Moravian God's Acre and constitutes one of the few 
choir customs still to survive. Another is the announcement of the 
death of each member of the congreation by the church band's playing 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

The saal in the Single Brothers House in Old Salem, which was used by the unmarried 
men and boys for their worship and song services. The organ was built by the well- 
known Pennsylvania organ maker, David Tannenberg, in 1797-1798. It has been fully 
restored. Photograph reproduced by courtesy of Old Salem, Inc. 

three chorale tunes, the second of which indicates the choir to which 
the deceased had belonged. 

For many years those who lived in Salem made little distinction 
between civil and ecclesiastical authority. The church directed all of 
the affairs of the community. The people wanted it so, and their 
leaders saw to it that careful observance of all church regulations was 
maintained. Quite naturally such a community laid itself open at many 
points to misunderstanding on the part of its neighbors because of its 

The Moravians and Wachovia 149 

dissimilarity to them. In particular the conscientious scruples which 
the Moravians of the early period cherished against bearing arms or 
taking oaths could readily be misinterpreted. This was even more 
true of another guiding principle which they maintained— that of obey- 
ing every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake in so far as their 
consciences would allow. It requires no great effort of the imagination 
to realize how strangely foreign the Salem community must have 
seemed to the rest of North Carolina in the 1770's. The demand for 
political independence from Great Britain, which was surging through 
the thirteen colonies like a ground swell, was unknown in Salem. The 
Moravians took little interest in politics. Moreover they owed to Great 
Britain gratitude for important benefactions; and since many of their 
brethren lived within the borders of the empire and others labored as 
missionaries of the gospel in distant British colonies, they purposely 
sought to avoid any actions which might endanger their position. 

Yet another characteristic of Salem set it apart from the rest of 
North Carolina for a long period. In all important decisions affecting 
its life and development this community was subject to final control 
by the central boards of the Moravian church in far-off Germany. 
At first Salem followed Herrnhut's guidance with implicit trust. This 
was quite natural. After all, in the early years the great majority of the 
residents had come from Germany via Pennsylvania or Maryland. 
They continued to speak German in their homes, their businesses, 
their church. They brought distinctive German architecture to this 
part of the state. They cultivated German thoroughness in their crafts 
and German methods in their schools. Many of the local leaders had 
been trained in the Moravian institutions of the fatherland. Moreover 
they sincerely believed that the instructions which they received from 
their brethren in Germany represented in fact the will of their divine 
Lord. This conviction was based upon the boards' practice of sub- 
mitting their problems to the lot before determining upon any specific 
course of action. They did this as a rule in one of two ways. In the 
first, the alternatives open to the church would be set down on slips 
of paper, one of which was then drawn after earnest prayer for God's 
overruling. Or, the answer could be sought to a single question by 
drawing one of three slips of paper. In that case the first would bear 
the word "yes"; the second, "no"; the third would be blank. Drawing 
the blank was generally interpreted to mean that the time was not yet 
ripe for any decision in the matter. 

150 The North Carolina Historical Review 

In their willingness to be directed from Herrnhut, Salem's attitude 
differed diametrically from that taken by most of its neighboring com- 
munities, in which men coveted self-determination and were quick to 
rebel against any hint of absentee control. 

Finally, let me stress the fact that these unique features in Salem's 
life persisted for an abnormally long time due to the exclusive char- 
acter of the town. In a conscious effort to preserve their way of life 
the Salem Moravians relied chiefly upon three measures. First, the 
church kept ownership of the Salem land, leasing it to individuals at 
very moderate terms. The leases, however, were continued subject to 
their holders' conforming to all regulations adopted by the church 
council. Those who persisted in refusing to abide by them had to 
leave the community. In such cases, or even when a lessee moved 
away of his own free will, he could sell the improvements which he 
had made upon the land only to some other Moravian who would 
be acceptable as a resident of the town. If such a purchaser could 
not be found, the church authorities were under obligation to take 
over the items in question at a fair price. A second regulation gave 
the church fathers paternalistic control over businesses and crafts 
within the town. To assure the heads of families the income they 
needed for the support of those dependent upon them, the number 
of individuals allowed to practice any given trade or profession was 
limited so as to have the supply of goods they produced or services 
they rendered conform to the local demand. On the other hand, in 
the interest of the community, prices and profits were also controlled. 
The third measure, which was intended to maintain the continuity of 
their way of life, curtailed personal liberty even more drastically. 
Young Moravians had to choose their life partners from among the 
membership of the church or from the limited number of friends 
whom the authorities judged to be qualified for membership. 

The average American of our day, including the average American 
who belongs to the Moravian Church, would consider such controls 
intolerable. Paradoxically, however, the community which instituted 
them two hundred years ago saw in them a guarantee of the highest 
freedom, freedom to follow the precepts of God. Not so their chil- 
dren's children. Slowly, but steadily, dissatisfaction and open dis- 
regard of the regulations increased. Finally, in 1856 the lease system 
was terminated by an overwhelming vote of the church council, and 
Salem ceased to be an exclusive Moravian center. 

Some seven years earlier the church council had voted to sell land 
lying on the northern outskirts of Salem to the commissioners of the 

The Moravians and Wachovia 151 

newly created county of Forsyth. The latter wanted to obtain this 
site for the county seat because of its central location. A community 
sprang up around the county buildings; in 1851 it received its name, 
"Winston." The new town soon outstripped its neighbor in industry 
and banking, though it is an interesting fact that the earlier settlement 
also had pioneered in the manufacture of tobacco, textiles, furniture, 
and had established banking facilities of its own. 

More and more rapidly Salem now became assimilated into the 
ways of the rest of North Carolina, thereby gaining much, but of 
necessity also losing much of its distinctive character. Friendly rela- 
tions continued between the two neighboring communities. In 1913 
they consolidated and formed the twin city of Winston-Salem, this 
to their mutual benefit. It goes without saying that Winston-Salem in 
1966 owes much also to the earlier decades of Winston's development, 
prior to the amalgamation of the two towns, but time does not allow 
a discussion of this subject. 

There remains the second phase of my topic, that concerned with 
the question: "What contributions has Winston-Salem made, due to 
its distinctive characteristics, to the state of North Carolina?" What 
may be said in this respect of this city, as it looks back upon two 
centuries of significant development? 

It has promoted education wholeheartedly. Salem Academy and 
College for Girls and Young Women traces its beginnings back to the 
day schools which the Moravians organized in their settlement in 
1772, when schools were few in the land. Thirty years later the 
church authorities decided, in response to repeated requests, to estab- 
lish a boarding school in Salem, which non-Moravian girls would 
also be encouraged to attend. R. D. W. Connor, in his North Carolina: 
Rebuilding an Ancient Commonwealth, 1584-1925, wrote with regard 
to higher education for women: 

The Moravian Church led the way when, in 1802, it founded the Salem 
Female Academy. This institution occupied the field alone until the educa- 
tional revival of the [eighteen] forties awakened the interest of the other 
churches in the problem. 

The city is proud to be the home of two other colleges today. In 
chronological order— in so far as this community's connection with 
them in concerned— they are Winston-Salem State College and Wake 
Forest College. The former was begun as the Slater Industrial Aca- 
demy in 1892, when only two other communities provided the colored 
citizens of this state with an opportunity of gaining higher education. 
More recently, in 1956, Winston-Salem gave a warm welcome to Wake 

152 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Forest College, when that outstanding institution moved to this city. 
Its medical school had been brought to Winston-Salem in 1941, a 
step which anticipated the transfer of the college by some fifteen 
years. Indeed, local climate appears to be favorable to education, 
since this city has provided the location for three significant experi- 
ments in modern techniques in this field, represented by the Gover- 
nor's School, the North Carolina Advancement School, and the North 
Carolina School of the Arts. 

Probably Winston-Salem is even better known for its industries and 
its banking activities. In support of this statement the fact can be 
cited that though it lies far from the world's waterways the federal 
government granted it the status of a "port of entry" in 1916 because 
of the volume of its imports of tobacco. Tobacco, textiles, and elec- 
tronics lead the list of the industries for which Winston-Salem is 
known. While perhaps none of these should be regarded as a direct 
outgrowth of Moravian Salem, yet definite continuity can be shown 
between other local industrial concerns and the early crafts. More- 
over, may not the prosperity of this community and the good labor 
relations which it has generally enjoyed be considered a heritage of 
the day when hardworking, shrewd, but devout pioneers laid the 
pattern for this community in the heart of Wachovia? Ever since its 
founding the Moravian congregation has included this petition in its 
Sunday litany: "Bless the sweat of the brow and the faithfulness in 
handicraft business," though this prayer has been slightly edited in 
the present form to read: "Bless the sweat of the brow and faithful- 
ness in business." 

Today the Wachovia Bank and Trust Company is recognized to be 
the largest bank not in North Carolina alone but in the whole south- 
eastern section of the nation. Its very name recalls its close ties with 
the past; and in fact, some of the leading personalities connected 
with the Wachovia National Bank, one of the present corporation's 
predecessors, had had a part in earlier banking ventures in Salem. 

Business activities, however, have not stifled the cultural interests 
of our community. Winston-Salem points with pride to the paintings 
of Daniel Welfare and the poems of John Henry Boner and to the 
creative talents of others as well. So it was fitting that a later genera- 
tion should undertake to pioneer in the Arts Council movement. This 
city, however, may surely claim music as its most important contri- 
bution to the arts. Through the years the Moravians have preserved 
in their archives a great store of manuscript music, much of it com- 
posed locally by men like Johann Friedrich Peter and Johann Chris- 

The Moravians and Wachovia 153 

tian Bechler and first enjoyed by the residents of Salem, when dedi- 
cation to the arts was quite unusual on this side of the Atlantic. 
Thanks to the relatively recent efforts of the Moravian Music Foun- 
dation this treasure store is becoming more generally available and 
more widely appreciated. Similarly, in 1950, the community's interest 
in its past found concrete expression in the organization of Old 
Salem, Inc., an association dedicated to preserving and restoring 
the buildings and crafts, the streets and walks which picture so vividly 
those beginnings to which we in our time owe such a debt. 

There remain two aspects of Winston-Salem which ought not to be 
omitted from even so brief a summary as this. Its residents have 
cultivated philanthropy on a generous scale. For more than forty 
years the United Fund drives, or similar city-wide campaigns under 
other names, have never failed to reach their annual goals. Moreover, 
as the city prospered, a number of foundations were created to pro- 
mote the well-being not merely of this community but of other areas 
in the state as well. Philanthropy frequently is an outgrowth of 
religious faith. In view of the ideals which motivated the founders 
of Salem and dominated life within that community for so long a 
period, the generous spirit found in this city today can be regarded 
at least in part as a fruit of commitment to God and concern for the 
needs of others, needs which the church as such no longer is in a 
position to supply. 

The characteristic of Winston-Salem which the early settlers of 
Salem in Wachovia would, however, surely have put first is its con- 
tinuing witness to faith in a living God. This influence has reached 
far out beyond the city limits. No doubt the same could be said in 
varying ways of every other community which cultivates vital reli- 
gion. Nevertheless at this point Winston-Salem's contribution has 
been distinctive. Through two centuries this city has sponsored a 
deeply moving form of worship each Easter dawn. In it, year by 
year, a great assembly gives expression to the central convictions of 
Christian faith. The number of those who reverently participate in 
this service has swelled into the thousands. They come from every part 
of the state and from far beyond its borders. Modern science carries 
their witness on the air. Who can appraise the help thus given to 
generations of men and women in their spiritual needs! In view of 
this privilege and of many other benefits the citizenry of Winston- 
Salem has done well to designate the two hundredth anniversary 
of the founding of Salem in Wachovia as a "Year of Thanksgiving." 



By Herbert R. Paschal, Jr.* 

As a judge in the Mayflower Award Competition of 1966 and as 
one who loves this state, I could not help but experience a feeling of 
warmth and pleasure as I sat in my study with this year's 34 May- 
flower entries piled about me. Surrounding me was the visible evidence 
of the scholarship, creative ability, and high purpose of my fellow 
North Carolinians. 

But as I contemplated the bounty spread before me certain nagging 
questions began to penetrate the euphoria of the moment. I recalled 
reading somewhere that about 28,000 books were published in the 
United States last year. A quick check of a reference work disclosed 
that about 20,000 were new works published for the first time. If 
half of these new works were fiction (and this is giving fiction far 
too large a share), then the truth must come clearly home to you as 
it did to me. North Carolinians are not writing their share of general 
or nonfiction works. It is difficult to pinpoint this lag precisely. It may 
be 50, 100, or 200 volumes, but the lag is certainly there. Thirty-four 
volumes are not enough. 

Reviewing North Carolina's nonfiction works last year, Professor 
Henry Stroupe noted the number of volumes entered in the May- 
flower Competition had declined from 40 in 1963, to 31 in 1964, to 25 
in 1965. Professor Stroupe remarked that this decline might well be 
"a matter of concern." Happily, this downward trend has been 
checked by the 34 volumes entered in competition this year. In the 
end, however, a fluctuation of a few volumes each year is not very 
significant. What is needed is a strong current, sufficient to sweep us 
out of the mid-century doldrums in which we now seem caught. This 
is the fifteenth year in which only nonfiction works have been eligible 

* Dr. Paschal is chairman of the Department of History, East Carolina College, 
Greenville ; this report was made at the morning meeting of the Literary and Historical 
Association, December 2, 1966. 

Review of North Carolina Nonfiction 155 

for the Mayflower Award. The average number of volumes placed in 
competition during this period has been 30, and the total number 
each year has seldom been far from this average. While no one would 
contend that we have lost ground, it would be folly to contend that 
we are making large strides forward either. Professor Richard Walser 
in his presidential address to this association three or four years 
ago warned that signs of a slowing down in cultural achievement 
were apparent in North Carolina. An increase each year of six, eight, 
or ten volumes entered in the Mayflower Competition would be a 
certain sign that the mid-century doldrums had been broken. That 
such a development will not be long in coming cannot help but be 
the ardent wish of all. 

It may seem strange that one assigned the task of reviewing the 
nonfiction works produced in North Carolina during the past year 
should take time to lament the works not written. My action might 
be compared with that of the preacher who delivers a powerful ser- 
mon to his congregation on Sunday denouncing those who fail to 
attend church. For in truth it is not those who are in attendance on 
Sunday morning who need the lecture but those who are absent. 
Certainly the 33 authors whose works appear on the Mayflower list 
have done their share to meet any possible Tar Heel sluggishness in 
literary production. 

In attempting to place the volumes to be reviewed in categories, I 
have come to have the utmost respect for librarians who without 
hesitation declare that this volume should be classified 973.065 or 
that as 328.547. I have longed for such skill and assurance but in vain. 
Certainly it is plain that the historians have been the most prolific 
Tar Heel writers. They are followed (but not too closely) by the 
writers of biographies and memoirs. Authors of religious works and 
of literary criticism have contributed several volumes in their respec- 
tive categories. The remaining works may be given the admittedly 
broad but the decidedly safe classification of miscellaneous. 

Eight of the works classified as history delve into the history of 
North Carolina. Two of the volumes, Swain County: Early History 
and Educational Development, by Lillian Franklin Thomasson, and 
An Illustrated History of Yadkin County 1850-4956, by William E. 
Rutledge, Jr., add to the steadily growing list of county histories. 
While both works are victims of many of the faults and problems 
which beset local history, they nonetheless add interesting detail and 
preserve much material of value for those who may subsequently 
write the full story of the mountain country of this state. 

156 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Two ancient North Carolina churches are treated in two separate 
studies. These are New Gilead Church: A History of the German Re- 
formed People of Coldwater, by Banks D. Shepherd, and One Hundred 
and Fifty Years of Service, 1816-1966, the story of the Hillsborough 
Presbyterian Church. The Cabarrus County church on Coldwater 
Creek was a focal point for much of the German Reformed work in 
Colonial North Carolina, and the account of the early days of this 
church constitutes the most significant portion of Shepherd's volume. 
The 28 pages devoted to the history of the Hillsborough Presbyterian 
Church give only a fleeting glimpse of that historic church's interest- 
ing past. 

In 102 concisely written pages Dr. Benjamin E. Washburn has pro- 
duced A History of the North Carolina State Board of Health, 1877- 
1925. The reader of this volume completed its reading with two 
wishes: one, that Dr. Washburn will ultimately bring his account 
from 1925 to the present and, two, that all of the state's departments 
and agencies in Raleigh will eventually publish similar accounts of 
their historical development. The first portion of the study constitutes 
a general history of the Board of Health's development, while the 
latter portion of the book describes the evolution of the various divi- 
sions within the agency down to 1925. 

An almost unique volume in concept and execution is William S. 
Powell's Paradise Preserved. It is a most interesting account of the 
thirty-odd year history of the Roanoke Island Historical Association. 
To place the story of the association in perspective the author briefly 
describes the Raleigh colonies on Roanoke Island, traces the later 
ownership of the settlement site, and tells of the efforts by individuals 
and organizations from the close of the Civil War to the present to 
gain national recognition for the events which transpired on Roanoke 
Island in the late sixteenth century. The tremendous success which 
the Roanoke Island Historical Association has had with Paul Green's 
outdoor symphonic drama The Lost Colony is now history, thanks to 
the efforts of Mr. Powell. 

Richard W. Iobst's The Bloody Sixth is a magnificently detailed 
account of the career of the Sixth North Carolina Regiment during 
the Civil War. Included, also, is a roster of the regiment compiled by 
Louis H. Manarin. As the reader follows the regiment from First 
Manassas where its gallant commander, Charles F. Fisher, fell; 
through the nightmare of Rappahannock Station; and on to Appo- 
mattox, he comes clearly to understand why it well deserved the 
sobriquet of "the Bloody Sixth." 

Review of North Carolina Nonfiction 157 

F. Roy Johnson's Tales from Old Carolina is part history and part 
folk tales. Whatever its classification, it is interesting. Johnson, rapidly 
becoming one of the more prolific writers on the North Carolina 
scene (he has two entries in this year's competition), recounts story 
after story of life in the old Albemarle area as it was lived a hundred 
or more years ago. Johnson's other volume, The Nat Turner Slave 
Insurrection, is a well-documented account of the tragic incident in 
Southampton County, Virginia, which so shocked North Carolina and 
the South. This work should be read by any who do not fully appre- 
ciate the haunting fear of slave insurrection which beset the dreams 
and thoughts of the southern slave owner. 

Professor Robert Durden of Duke University has written The Cli- 
max of Populism. The climax to which the author alludes is the 
famous free silver election of 1896. The author carefully reconstructs 
the role of the Populist party in this election and in doing so presents 
evidence to show that a number of opinions held by historians about 
the 1896 election will have to be carefully reexamined. 

Y. C. Wang's Chinese Intellectuals and the West, 1872-1949, is a 
highly complex and detailed study of the 100,000 Chinese students 
who left their own country to study abroad prior to 1949 and of the 
impact which these returning students had upon China. Professor 
Wang seems to feel the new intelligentsia tended to destroy the old 
moral and ethical values of China and to replace them with little of 
lasting worth. The new ideas which entered the vacuum thus created 
need no elaboration here. 

Lillian Parker Wallace, a Baptist, continues to write of the Papacy 
with understanding and sympathy in Leo XIII and the Rise of Social- 
ism. The work is essentially a full-scale treatment of the collision of 
the doctrines of socialism and those of the Catholic church in the 
nineteenth century, out of which came Pope Leo's Rerum Novarum. 
The knowledge and scholarship of the author is evident on every 
page of this work. 

The final volume of history to be reviewed is The Russian Army 
Under Nicholas I, 1825-1855, by John S. Curtiss. Despite the rather 
forbidding title, this is an exceptionally readable volume. One com- 
pletes this work feeling as if he were an authority on the Russian 
people and their character. While the story of the wars fought by 
Russia during the reign of Nicholas is told in considerable detail, one 
remembers most vividly the chapters which describe the recruitment, 
training, and day-to-day activities and life of the men and officers who 
fought in the wars. This is a genuinely rewarding study. 

158 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Six works on our Mayflower list belong clearly in the field of biog- 
raphy or memoirs. Given our locale and circumstances, it is perhaps 
only fitting that we begin our consideration of this category with 
Dorothy Nifong's Brethren With Stethoscopes. This small volume con- 
tains quite readable and entertaining sketches of the many beloved 
physicians who have served the Moravian community from Colonial 
times to the present generation. It is impossible to pass on to another 
work without adding a word of congratulations on the beauty of the 
format. If only all books were as typographically interesting, reading 
would bring even more pleasure. 

Those who like to feel that North Carolinians can do things a little 
better than most will find strong proof in Glenn H. Todd's The 
Immortal Nick Arrington. This biography tells of the wealthy Nash 
County plantation owner who made his plantation, "The Cedars," 
the home of the most celebrated gamecocks in the world. No name 
ranks higher in the annals of this bloody sport than that of Nick 
Arrington. He was, says his biographer, "the greatest cockfighter that 
ever lived." 

A former Mayflower winner, LeGette Blythe, has written Robert 
Lee St owe: Pioneer in Textiles. In this work Blythe tells the life story 
of a Gaston County man who in the best tradition of the New South 
philosophy built a textile manufacturing empire. 

Calvin B. Hoover, long-time chairman of the Department of Eco- 
nomics at Duke University, has written his Memoirs of Capitalism, 
Communism, and Nazism. These memoirs disclose that professors, 
too, can live exciting lives. Few professors, however, can match 
Hoover's varied career as scholar, adviser to presidents, and OSS 
agent in World War II. 

Former Governor Terry Sanford has turned to the writing of 
memoirs with a work intriguingly entitled But What About the 
People? In this work Mr. Sanford tells how he set out to improve 
education in North Carolina during his administration. It is, as all 
North Carolinians know, a success story. The former governor is, 
however, silent upon the political infighting which must have accom- 
panied his many victories for education. 

Another former Mayflower winner, Glenn Tucker, has written Zeb 
Vance: Champion of Personal Freedom. In this work the man who 
may well have been the most beloved North Carolinian who has 
ever lived comes clearly and sharply into focus for the first time in a 
biography. Concentrating principally upon Vance's career as Civil 

Review of North Carolina Nonfiction 159 

War governor, Tucker has written a biographical study of the first 

The field of religion is well represented among the Mayflower com- 
petitors. James Cleland, dean of Duke Chapel, in He Died as He 
Lived has written seven moving meditations on the seven last words 
or statements uttered by Christ upon the Cross. His Duke colleague, 
David B. Bradley, is the author of Circles of Faith which is designed 
to serve as an introductory work for those about to embark upon a 
study of the world's great religions. Catherine Johansson's Concepts 
of Freedom in the Old Testament finds hidden meanings, sometimes 
vague to this reviewer, in certain passages of the Bible. Wayside Re- 
flections, by L. A. Martin, is a collection of seventy or eighty short 
inspirational messages. A Lutheran minister, Raymond H. Witt, tells 
of his efforts to integrate a parish on the South Side of Chicago and 
tells the story quite well in the title of his book, It Aint Been Easy, 

Undoubtedly the best seller among the books on the Mayflower list 
(the jacket on my copy said there were 400,000 copies already in 
print) is Billy Graham's World Aflame. There are twenty-three chap- 
ters which together constitute a powerful if lengthy sermon. The 
movement of this work may be seen in the following selected chapter 
headings: "Flames Out of Control," "The Searchers in a Flaming 
World," "The Inescapable Christ," "How to Become a New Man," 
and "The Fabulous Future." 

Literary criticism is splendidly represented by three works. Chris- 
tian Rite and Christian Drama, by O. B. Hardison, Jr., is a collection 
of seven closely reasoned essays designed to reassess the available 
knowledge of the medieval drama. Hardison contends in the last 
two essays that the vernacular drama did not necessarily emerge from 
the Latin or church drama as many authorities maintain. Lodwick 
Hartley's Laurence Sterne in the Twentieth Century consists in part of 
a long essay describing how the author of Tristram Shandy has fared 
at the hands of biographers and critics. The greater portion of the 
book is given over to a bibliography of works relating to Sterne pub- 
lished since 1900. Jay Broadus Hubbell has published a collection of 
seventeen essays in South and Southwest. They range in subject from 
"The Smith-Pocahontas Literary Legend" to "Jesse Holmes the Fool 

Art history is represented by only one volume but it is a magnificent 
one. This work is Sidney David Markman's Colonial Architecture of 
Antigua Guatemala. It is an exhaustive study of the physical remains 

160 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of the city which served as the capital of Guatemala from 1541 to 
1773. It is handsomely illustrated with 215 photographs. This work 
cannot help but be the definitive study of its subject. 

In Congress and Lobbies, coauthors Andrew M. Scott and Margaret 
Hunt describe their interviews with congressmen which were de- 
signed to determine to what extent the people's representatives were 
influenced by interest groups or lobbyists. Their conclusion is that 
the influence of interest groups upon Congress is far less than has 
been thought. 

Jasper L. Stuckey has written the only work which can be placed 
in the broad area of science. It is North Carolina: Its Geology and 
Mineral Resources. It contains not only what its title promises but 
also a history of the development of the science of geology in North 
Carolina. It is an excellent and much needed work. In Around the 
World Report, 1965, Holt McPherson takes the reader on a highly 
personal tour of much of Asia, while Loy A. Martin in The Crewcut 
relates anecdotes gleaned from nearly forty years behind a barber's 
chair. The ladies who may wonder what the men are talking about 
behind the big plate glass windows will find from a perusal of this 
work that it is rather bland stuff. 

Harry Golden in A Little Girl Is Dead presents in full detail one of 
the more famous murder cases of the early twentieth century, the 
murder of Mary Phagan. All of the ingredients are here— a teen-age 
girl murdered in a pencil factory in Atlanta, a Jewish manufacturer 
accused of the crime, a Georgia lynch mob, et cetera, et cetera. To 
Golden the whole case is obviously loaded with symbolism. To this 
reviewer it was an absorbing story well told. 

We have run our course. The story is told, and this reviewer must 
admit to the sentiments expressed in the title of the work of one of 
our authors— If Aint Been Easy, Charlie. 






By Sir Patrick Dean* 

When I was first approached by the organizers of these celebra- 
tions, I received a number of letters addressed to "Sir Patrick Dean," 
which, of course, was quite normal and absolutely correct. As the 
correspondence went on I noticed, however, that my name under- 
went a subtle change and I was increasingly referred to as "Sir Patrick 
Henry Dean." I am used to this form of address by now, especially 
when I happen to be in Virginia. 

When I was reading the excellent material sent to me by the North 
Carolina Literary and Historical Association, I saw that there might 
be an additional reason for the use of my full name. This is that 
apparently Joseph Winston, after whom the Winston part of Winston- 
Salem was named, was related to Patrick Henry. 

I had better tell you the truth at the outset that I was not named 
after Patrick Henry. Nor do I know why I was christened thus because 
I doubt very much whether my father and mother had it in mind at 
that time that I should become Ambassador to the United States. So 
far as I know the only obvious thing that Patrick Henry and I have in 
common is that we started out as lawyers. After that our paths di- 
verged. He became very close, as he himself admitted, to becoming 
a rebel, while I have only changed from the striped pants of the law- 
yer to the stuffed shirt of the diplomatist. 

I am greatly honored to have been invited here to celebrate with 
you the two hundredth anniversary of the founding of Salem. 

* Sir Patrick Dean is the British Ambassador to the United States; this address was 
made at the luncheon meeting of the Literary and Historical Association, December 2, 

162 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The story of this city is indeed fascinating and significant, too. To 
begin with it is hard to imagine that it was ever possible to buy the 
tract of land known as Wachovia— some 100,000 acres— for £916. But 
my history book tells me it was so. It was an arrangement arrived at 
between the Moravians and Lord Granville, the last of the Lords 
Proprietors of the colony, who held the counties bordering on Vir- 
ginia. The early settlers who came to Wachovia were from Penn- 
sylvania and were largely central European by origin. They decided 
that they wanted a "congregation town" where only members of the 
Moravian church would live. That town began to grow in 1766 and 
it was, significantly, I think, called Salem, from the Hebrew, meaning 
"peace." Before that, the territory which is now North Carolina had, 
of course, been inhabited by a number of Indian tribes and was visited 
by French, Spanish, and English explorers in the early sixteenth cen- 
tury. Then there were the very early attempts by the English to 
settle on Roanoke Island, some two hundred years before the 
founding of Salem. And later much of the state was settled by Eng- 
lishmen and Scottish Highlanders and people of mixed Scottish and 
Irish descent. 

Now all these peoples, with their different religious, social, racial, 
and educational backgrounds have melded, through natural hardship 
and the vicissitudes of war, and have built and created, prospered and 
expanded. This city is now, as we all know, one of the leading cultural 
and manufacturing centers of the South. Britain has long enjoyed not 
only a close cultural and historical association with North Carolina 
and Winston-Salem, we also have very close and important business 
ties as well. 

So it seems appropriate and it is for me a great pleasure to take 
this opportunity to say a few words to you about the position of our 
two countries in the world today. 

Let me begin by saying that while Britain is no longer one of 
the greatest powers because we have not the military might, eco- 
nomic strength, or the resources, or the populations of the United 
States and Russia, we are nonetheless preeminently a worldwide 
power with more interests, relationships, and commitments in every 
part of the globe than any other power. As Mr. George Brown, the 
British Foreign Secretary, put it recently, we are "linked to the four 
corners of the world, linked by trade, linked by the Commonwealth, 
linked by our Alliances." These ties have come to us through history 
and geography, and through the realities of international life today. 

Though Britain is geographically roughly the same size as the state 

Great Britain and the United States 163 

of Oregon; hard put to it, up to now, too often for comfort, to make 
both ends meet; though we have to import about half the food we 
eat and nearly all the raw materials we need for our industry— we 
have nonetheless many blessings. 

These include, above all, a spirit of independence, of determination, 
of adventure, of ingenuity and a desire to innovate and to invent, to 
explore and to pioneer. Without them we certainly should not have 
survived. We share these with you, just as we share a common history 
and, I believe, a common destiny. Today, at this stage in our long 
and at times stormy association, we can see certain things very clearly 
indeed. Above all, our two countries have reached a point where for 
our own peoples at home and for the world at large we hope for and 
are working toward, very broadly, the same things. 

This closeness of view and similarity in approach to world problems 
is, of course, based upon many things. We are greatly helped by speak- 
ing a common language— "The strongest and most durable of all 
ties/' as De Tocqueville wrote. We are like-minded in our fundamental 
beliefs; the parliamentary system, the independent judiciary, the 
inalienable right of human beings to live in freedom and dignity under 
law; that the state is made for man and not vice versa. There are 
strong ties of blood, too. 

But this common approach, based on our closely intermingled past, 
is not, I believe, in any way a narrow, myopic relationship. There is 
no exclusivity about the partnership between Britain and the United 
States. Some people suggest that it is so, but they do so out of ignor- 
ance. You may have come across this line of thought— that the partner- 
ship is in some way exclusive or preclusive— in the context of the 
probings and soundings that are now going on about possible British 
entry into the European Common Market. Perhaps people do not 
always fully understand what we say. That of course may be our 
fault. What we have in fact always tried to make clear is that we 
could never take part in the building of a unified Europe if the cost 
were to divide the Atlantic down the middle. Put another way, we 
do not intend to narrow the English Channel by widening the Atlantic 
Ocean. How could we? We know that it is vital for world peace and 
stability as well as for our own individual national well-being that 
the responsibilities and commitments of Europe and North America 
should continue to be interdependent. 

I do not believe any nation, however great and powerful or small 
and insignificant, can ever again be sure it would survive another 
global war. In Britain's case another war of that kind is unthinkable: 

164 The North Carolina Historical Review 

we are far too vulnerable. For the seas that surround our islands, 
though always our friend, can never again be the shield that they 
were in the past. So it would surely be an incredibly backward step 
if, after two disastrous world wars and tremendous efforts on the part 
of governments and people over the years to bring about greater 
unity, we were now to go back on our tracks and deny all these 
things. Are not the Commonwealth, the European Economic Com- 
munity, EFTA, NATO, SEATO, CENTO, the OAS, and the OAU, to 
mention only some of the main organizations, and above all the United 
Nations itself, are they not all concrete, if imperfect, examples of 
governments' and peoples' determination to work together, to ad- 
vance by peaceful cooperation rather than by any violent means? 

Our way to international peace, security, and stability is to work 
through peaceful means— negotiation, arbitration, mediation, consul- 
tation, and discussion within the framework of international law. In a 
world where the old empires have broken up and the greater part of 
the world's population is going through a period of change it is essen- 
tial that we should try to ensure that that change is peaceful and not 

In some of the newly— or relatively newly independent countries- 
poverty and ignorance and disease are extreme and the potential for 
fermenting violence is extreme, too, as we have all unfortunately seen. 
That is why those nations in the developed world, the United States 
and Britain, and other like-minded countries, have launched big pro- 
grams of aid for the developing countries. These programs, generous 
though they are, are never large enough, so great is the gap be- 
tween the developing and developed countries. That gap used to be 
thought about in terms of wealth only— hence the terms Haves and 
Have-Nots— but now it is, I think, understood to be much more com- 
plex. The gap now covers the ability to trade in this highly competitive 
world and refers, too, to the huge technological gulf between us 
which gets wider by geometrical rather than arithmetical progression. 
Indeed, we might now almost refer to the two parties as the Know- 
Hows and the Non-Know-Hows. 

Side by side with our aid programs are the treaties and defensive 
alliances by which both we and you seek to help the smaller coun- 
tries, when they ask, from being overcome or subverted by larger 
and more powerful countries. 

Within our partnership there is, naturally, a great disparity. The 
United States is the most powerful nation on earth. But you would, I 
am sure, be the first to agree that, as we found out, power brings with 

Great Britain and the United States 165 

it extra burdens and more responsibilities. To carry these out you 
need not only your own vast resources, and the willingness of your 
people, and your own broad shoulders. You also have to have friends. 
Though in terms of power, Britain's contribution is bound to be small 
beside yours, it is nonetheless constant and significant. Above all, it is 
there and you are aware that it will remain there so long as it is 
needed and so long as we are able to provide it. I am thinking here 
of such concrete things as the fact that Britain has always made the 
biggest contribution after the United States to NATO and that again, 
after you, we are the second largest contributor to United Nations 
activities as a whole. Moreover, we are the only country to be a mem- 
ber of all three defensive alliances, NATO, SEATO, and CENTO. 

Then, too, we have something to offer the partnership which is 
difficult to measure in concrete terms. Through history, especially 
our imperial and trading past, we have naturally well-established links 
with many parts of the world where you have few or none. And by 
these links which cover the whole globe, principally through the 
Commonwealth, we can make a certain unique contribution. 

So between us, I think we have much to offer in the continuing 
struggle for peace and for the improvement of our fellowmen's way 
of life and standard of living. 


By Richard L. Watson, Jr.* 

"In him one discovers nothing of the flashing eye, the craggy mein, 
the Bryanesque shine which one instinctively associates with the 
Lord God Jehovah and the Senator from the South. Nevertheless, the 
man's duds, in the aggregate, are worthy of the stateliest neanderthaler 
who ever cooled his heels on a Capitol Hill desk, worthy of Jehovah 
in His most waggish moments. . . ." 

"Simmons' salient achievement is to have lifted the Republican 
party in the state to a fighting equality with its foe, and set North 
Carolina on a path that . . . must lead finally to Republican rule." So 
wrote the distinguished North Carolina journalist-critic, Wilbur J. 
Cash, in July, 1929. 1 F. M. Simmons, U.S. senator from North Caro- 
lina, epitome of Democratic regularity, had just refused to support 
Alfred E. Smith, the Democratic party's candidate for President of 
the United States. 

Just two years before Peter Wilson in his book Southern Exposure 
stated that "Furnifold M. Simmons ... is the greatest representative 
North Carolina has ever sent to the Councils of the Nation." In 1914 
Josiah W. Bailey had written that "in our National Councils" Simmons 
"is the most conspicuous individual since Nathaniel Macon." 2 By 
then Simmons had already served thirteen years in the U.S. Senate, 
and Bailey had been one of the Senator's key supporters particularly 

* Dr. Watson is professor of history at Duke University, Durham. He served as 
president of the Literary and Historical Association in 1966 and delivered his presi- 
dential address at the dinner meeting of the association, December 2, 1966. 

a W. J. Cash, "Jehovah of the Tar Heels," American Mercury, XVII (July, 1929), 
310-318, hereinafter cited as Cash, "Jehovah of the Tar Heels." 

2 Peter Michael Wilson, Southern Exposure (Chapel Hill: University of North Caro- 
lina Press, 1927), 186; speech by R. A. Nunn given at the memorial exercises for 
Senator Simmons at the Craven County Superior Courtroom, May 13, 1946, copy in 
Manuscript Department, Duke University Library, Durham; Bailey to editor, Greens- 
boro Daily News [August, 1914], Josiah W. Bailey Papers, Duke Manuscript Depart- 
ment, hereinafter cited as Bailey Papers. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 167 

in the campaign for renomination over W. W. Kitchin in 1912— the 
only primary in Simmons' thirty-year career, other than his first 
and last, in which he faced any significant opposition. In 1914, at 
sixty years of age, Simmons was reaching the peak of his power. Six- 
teen years later, sick, tired, with many of his political friends dead- 
he ran in his last primary and the same Josiah Bailey overwhelmed 

There have been a number of attempts to rate American political 
leaders. One poll attempted to select the five leading senators, and 
the portraits of Clay, Webster, Calhoun, La Follette, and Taft now 
grace the Senate Reception Room. Someday someone will list the 
North Carolinians who have had the greatest influence upon national 
politics. Far be it from me to dare to provide such a list. Perhaps, 
however, the career of Furnifold McLendel Simmons might suggest 
some of the criteria for such a selection. 

One of these might be length of service. Although length of service 
does not mean distinction, frequent reelection does imply that con- 
stituents are satisfied; and the longer the service, the greater the 
opportunity to perform. Simmons is one of five representatives and 
senators from North Carolina who served in the U.S. Congress for 
thirty years or more. Nathaniel Macon served thirty-four years in 
the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and Robert L. Dough- 
ton with forty years, Edward Pou with thirty-three years, and Harold 
Cooley with thirty-two years, all served in the twentieth century. 
Simmons, tied with Cooley for fourth place among North Carolina's 
legislators in tenure but first among the senators, entered politics from 
New Bern in the late 1870's. At that time the Republican party in 
North Carolina was strong while the Democrats were badly split over 
what many considered radical policies of monetary inflation and 
government regulation demanded by farm groups. In 1884 the Re- 
publicans in the Second District, whose membership included thou- 
sands of Negro voters, had elected a Negro, James E. O'Hara, as 
their congressional representative. Before OHara's term was over, 
another Negro, probably encouraged by the Democrats, was seeking 
the nomination. By this maneuver the Republican voters in the dis- 
trict were split. Simmons had just been appointed chairman of the 
Democratic Executive Committee of the district. He was thirty-two 
years old, a persuasive speaker, and a successful lawyer, 3 but he was 
also a farmer sympathetic to agrarian demands yet unwilling to com- 

8 News and Observer (Raleigh), October 14, September 2, 1886, hereinafter cited as 
News and Observer. 

168 The North Carolina Historical Review 

mit himself to some of the more radical ones. A logical candidate to 
take advantage of the Republican split, he was nominated and elected. 

Thus began Simmons' political career. It was a hesitant beginning 
because two years later he was defeated by Henry P. Cheatham, 
another Republican Negro. In this year Democrats all over the state 
were having difficulties because the Farmers Alliance and Populists 
were upsetting traditional party applecarts. By 1892 the situation had 
deteriorated so rapidly that Democratic defeat in the state seemed 
likely. At that time the chairmanship of the Democratic State Com- 
mittee was hardly a sought-after post, and the party old guard may 
have been seeking a victim when they asked Simmons to accept it. 
Simmons' father advised his son to turn them down suspecting that 
they were looking for a scapegoat. 4 The father may have been right, 
but had Simmons refused the post, he might never have been a U.S. 

Simmons did accept and acquired a reputation as a superb party 
organizer which was to be his throughout his career. This reputa- 
tion was the result of meticulous attention to detail; voter-by- 
voter canvass by responsible workers, protection of the polls by 
poll watchers, judicious use of absentee ballots, distribution of 
literature, 5 making use of eloquent speakers (young men in most 
cases such as Charles B. Ay cock, Cameron Morrison, Locke Craig, 
Lee S. Overman, Robert B. Glenn, Claude and W. W. Kitchin, and 
Josephus Daniels), and an indefinable personal magnetism that his 
friends tried hard to explain. The Democrats won in 1892, and, as the 
Wilmington Star put it, "Chairman Simmons proved himself a Napo- 
leon in politics in the recent campaign." 6 

Simmons gave up the chairmanship to accept his reward, the post 
of Collector of Internal Revenue for the Eastern District of North 
Carolina. In the next elections, those of 1894 and 1896, the Demo- 
crats suffered a series of statewide defeats and in 1898 he was called 
back to win the state from the control of the Republicans and Popu- 
lists and their Negro allies. New successes brought him the most 
important national office which North Carolina Democrats could be- 
stow, that of U.S. senator. 

This is not the place to discuss the elections of 1898 and 1900, but 
again Simmons made his mark as chairman of the Democratic State 
Committee and created an organization upon which his future politi- 

*J. Fred Rippy (ed.), F. M. Simmons, Statesman of the New South . . . (Durham: 
Duke University Press, 1936), 19, hereinafter cited as Rippy, F. M. Simmons. 
6 News and Observer, September 11, 1892. 
B Quoted in News and Observer, November 12, 1892. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 169 

cal security rested. Those were emotional years when racial an- 
tagonisms were at fever pitch, and when the goal was not only 
Democratic victory but Negro disfranchisement. The two went hand 
in hand because the thousands of Negroes who voted in those days 
usually voted Republican, and some Democrats simply wanted to cut 
down on Republican strength. But motives were mixed. There were 
undoubtedly those who wished to win by any means, and an anti- 
Negro, white supremacy slogan attracted votes. At the same time, 
many were convinced that the polls were being corrupted by illiterate 
Negro voters, and hence looked upon disfranchisement as a positive 
reform. Indeed the campaign took on the nature of a crusade. Sim- 
mons described it years later as "those great days of 1898 when you 
and I fought side by side with thousands of the bravest and best of 
the state to restore reputable and honest government to North Caro- 
lina." He continued to cite his successes of 1898 and 1900 in all his 
campaigns including the primary of 1930 when he was finally 
defeated. 7 

Thus the early campaigns provided Simmons with an organization 
and a reputation— factors which put him in the Senate and helped to 
keep him there, and which led to his political enemies tagging him 
and his friends with the label "Simmons Machine." 

It would be difficult to define precisely what this machine was 
or what it did. His friends, understandably, denied the existence of 
any sinister organization. Simmons was a highly respected man, they 
claimed, and his friends turned to him for political advice; 8 more often 
than not they followed it. Perhaps his influence was greatest in select- 
ing governors, a process in which he took a keen interest. Even in gub- 
ernatorial campaigns, however, his role is unclear since he left much of 
the personal work to others, such as his dedicated and controversial 
secretaries, A. D. Watts until the early 1920's and then Frank Hamp- 
ton. Simmons was particularly active in supporting Aycock in 1900, 
Craig in 1908 and 1912, Morrison in 1920, and Angus W. McLean in 
1924. Only in 1908 was his candidate, Locke Craig, defeated, and 
Craig came back to win in 1912. In that same year W. W. Kitchin 
challenged Simmons for the Senate, the only time in thirty years that 
Simmons' tenure was threatened. But the advantageous position of 
a man already in office together with the effectiveness of his organi- 
zation quashed the threat. 

7 Rippy» F. M. Simmons, 184. 

8 Author's interview with John Langston, June 25, 1954; author's interview with 
Prank Hampton, September 6, 1955. 

170 The North Carolina Historical Review 

There is little evidence of any significant influence of a machine 
in state legislation. After the disfranchising amendment to the Con- 
stitution in 1900, the only clear-cut case of Simmons' personal inter- 
vention in state legislation was in the fight for prohibition. He claims 
to have drafted the Watts Bill of 1903 which provided the entering 
wedge by prohibiting "saloons and distilleries" in rural areas. The 
issue became perhaps the liveliest in the state until statewide pro- 
hibition was adopted in 1908. Although such men as Thomas J. Jarvis, 
Josiah Bailey, Locke Craig, Josephus Daniels, and particularly Gov- 
ernor Glenn were in the forefront of this campaign, Simmons helped 
work out the strategy by dramatically claiming that the state was 
"spending more money for Liquor than for education, for intoxication 
than for children." 9 From a political point of view these victories had 
gratifying results. Simmons had identified himself with the popular 
side in one of the exciting issues of the day and gained supporters 
among women's clubs, churches, and increasingly influential organi- 
zations such as the Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian 
Temperance Union. 

By the time Simmons entered the Senate in 1901, he had already 
been a professional politician for fifteen years. Political loyalty and 
responsibility for constituents were a part of his very being, and his 
office staff kept busy taking care of North Carolinians. Sometimes they 
merely greeted visitors, but there were also all kinds of services: the 
banker from Charlotte whom Simmons aided in securing a govern- 
ment deposit; 10 the employee in the Department of Internal Revenue 
who was transferred back to North Wilkesboro at Simmons' request 
and who promised Simmons' secretary, "If ever I can render you or 
the Senator a favor, nights don't get too dark— rain or hail won't fall 
too fast for me to move to your or his interest." n 

Simmons took advantage of all opportunities to send government 
favors to constituents. He distributed flowering shrubs from the 
Botanical Gardens; he honored numerous requests for fish to stock 
fish ponds by ordering them from the Commissioner of Fisheries; 12 he 

9 Rippy, F. M. Simmons, 35-37; Hugh Talmage Lefler and Albert Ray Newsome, 
North Carolina: The History of a Southern State (Chapel Hill: University of North 
Carolina Press, 1954), 568-569; Daniel J. Whitener, Prohibition in North Carolina, 
1715-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1946), Chapters IX and 
X, especially 157, n.23. 

10 W. C Wilkinson to Simmons, December 2, 1907, Furnifold M. Simmons Papers, 
Duke Manuscript Department, hereinafter cited as Simmons Papers. 

11 P. E. Dancy to Frank Hampton, October 31, 1919, Simmons Papers. 

u See, for example, Simmons to George W. Hess, Director of U.S. Botanical Gardens, 
April 1, 1925, Simmons Papers. In 1925 over 800 applications from North Carolina for 
fish were pending. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 171 

took advantage of an annual appropriation providing for free distri- 
bution of garden seeds. As one party worker put it in 1908, "I suggest 
that you let the seed come right along, so that I may distribute them 
among my operatives before they begin to complain. The effect is 
good." 13 

Simmons and his secretaries spent a great deal of effort in reward- 
ing constituents with jobs. 14 The traditional source of political reward 
was, of course, the post office. The plums involved were not only 
postmasters, but railway postal clerks, postal inspectors, rural letter 
carriers, and the location of R.F.D. routes. In a rural state such as 
North Carolina, communication was important and the postal em- 
ployees were frequently a source of political views and could thus 
swing considerable influence. As Frank Hampton, Simmons' secre- 
tary, put it on one occasion, "These matters are loaded, and ... re- 
quire a very thorough knowledge of local politics and political 
functions and political county leaders. . . ." 15 In any case Simmons 
supported legislation popular with the postal employees such as the 
expansion of the R.F.D. system and numerous measures for higher 
pay. 16 Understandably the rural letter carriers— who themselves were 
organized— were enthusiastic supporters. Indeed this support may have 
been one of the most important factors explaining the effectiveness 
of the Simmons organization. 

When Simmons was elected to the Senate, postmasters were not 
chosen by civil service examinations. Normally congressmen nomi- 
nated candidates proposed by the local faithful and thus gained 
friends strategically placed for political purposes. Simmons under- 
standably favored this procedure. He was also understandably upset 
when President Wilson tightened up the civil service requirements for 
postmasters and finally limited the selection for any particular job to 
the person who scored highest on a competitive examination. 17 To the 
Democrats the unfortunate result of this procedure might be that the 
top scorer could be a Republican. Part of the game now became to see 
to it that "two or three good Simmons Democrats . . ." "likely to make 
good grades" would take the examination so that "the chances of a 

13 Lawrence McRae, County Board of Elections, Rockingham County, to Simmons, 
March 31, 1908, Simmons Papers. 

14 For example, Simmons to J. M. Long, June 15, 1921, Simmons Papers. 
"Hampton to Leon Fuquay, October 1, 1926, Simmons Papers. 

ia See, for example, James H. Holloway to Simmons, March 7, 1907, and numerous 
letters in Simmons Papers in 1908 and in January, 1925; E. D. Pearsall to S. A. Ashe, 
July 26, 1912, also in Simmons Papers. 

17 Simmons to Woodrow Wilson, March 15, 1917, Woodrow Wilson Papers, Division 
of Manuscripts, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Report of the Postmaster 
General, 1919 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919), 57. 

172 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Republican making the highest grade would be reduced to a mini- 

» 10 

When Warren G. Harding became President in 1921, he looked at 
the Wilson method of choosing postmasters with quite different eyes. 
Republican complaints about the system were that the top grade might 
go to a Democrat, and to appoint Democratic postmasters would not 
do; so within two months of his inauguration, Harding changed the 
procedure by instructing the Postmaster General to nominate to the 
President the name of not the one with the highest grade but "one of 
the highest three qualified eligibles. . . ." 19 

Simmons quickly saw that Harding would probably be able to find 
at least one Republican among the top three. He knew that he could 
not "exercise any influence in the matter of appointments with the 
Republican administration." Yet he proposed to see that the civil 
service laws and executive orders were "not prostituted for political 
purposes." 20 For example, when he learned that the Post Office De- 
partment proposed to hold another examination for the postmaster- 
ship of Norlina where only one man, a Democrat, had qualified, he 
wrote Postmaster General Will H. Hays: "Of course, I do not expect 
a Republican Administration to appoint Democrats in preference to 
Republicans, but in this case, Mr. Hardy is the only eligible, and I 
should think that his appointment would follow as a matter of course, 
if the merit system is to receive any consideration whatsoever. I under- 
stand it is proposed to call for another examination on the grounds 
that a full list of three eligibles is desired. ... I know that this course 
would be only a subterfuge, and I do not think that it will have your 
approval. I shall await with much interest your Department's action 
in this case." 21 

Postmaster appointments, providing bulbs, seeds, and shrubs for 
constituents, being sure that the rural routes were established in line 
with his friends' wishes, even at times slipping a word to people who 
were grading civil service examinations, 22 baseball tickets, appoint- 
ments to Annapolis and West Point, veterans' claims for hospital 
service and pensions, all were important in retaining a loyal following 
in North Carolina. They hardly determine status as a statesman, how- 

18 [Hampton] to T. M. Washington, March 18, 1919; [Hampton] to L. V. Bassett, 
October 16, 1919, Simmons Papers. 

19 Report of the Postmaster General, 1921 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing 
Office, 1921). 

"Simmons to G. L. Griffin, May 13, 1921, Simmons Papers. 

31 Simmons to Will Hays, December 22, 1921, Simmons Papers. 

22 Hampton to Thomas Battle, February 20, 1926 ; telegram, Hampton to J. P. Bunn, 
March 2, 1926, Simmons Papers. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 173 

ever, and if Simmons is to be ranked as one of North Carolina's great- 
est, he will have to be judged by more than the gains and losses in 
postmasterships. He must be judged on the basis of his effectiveness 
as a legislator. 

In this category, also, Simmons would emerge with good marks. He 
owed his reputation in the Senate not merely to seniority but to 
intelligence and hard work. 23 

The most tangible results of Simmons' legislative efforts may have 
come from his membership on the Senate Committee on Commerce. 
Simmons was a member of that committee from 1906 until he left 
the Senate, and he took his national responsibilities seriously. Un- 
questionably, however, these national interests were colored by the 
effect that various projects would have upon his state. At heart he 
was an eastern North Carolinian, sensitive to high transportation 
costs and low farm prices; convinced of the potentialities of New 
Bern and Wilmington as ocean ports; of the rivers, sounds, and 
swamps as inland waterways, and of the possibilities of connecting 
these by a railway with the trans-Appalachian West. 

Simmons was by no means the only North Carolinian in Congress 
who fought to improve the state's waterways. John Small of Washing- 
ton, congressman from 1899 to 1919, and Lindsay Warren, also from 
Washington, who served from 1925 to 1941, were equally dedicated. 
Yet Simmons and his secretaries put an amazing amount of time in 
following projects small and large from local studies to the chief of 
army engineers, to congressional committee, and to the floors of the 
House and Senate. Year after year, Simmons would wangle appropria- 
tions for such projects as a thirty-foot channel in the Cape Fear River 
from Wilmington to the sea; the construction of dams and locks on 
the Cape Fear to create a reliable eight-foot channel from Fayette- 
ville to Wilmington; 24 and, perhaps his most important project, the 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. 

23 Both Senator Henry F. Ashurst and Senator Walter George testified to Simmons' 
abilities. Author's interviews with Senator Ashurst, March 30, 1955, and with Senator 
George, March 31, 1955. 

91 Cape Fear River at and Below Wilmington, N.C., and Between Wilmington and 
Navassa, Report on Review of Reports Heretofore Submitted on Cape Fear River 
Below Wilmington, N.C., and Between Wilmington and Navassa, House Rivers and 
Harbors Committee, Document No. 39, Seventy-first Congress, Second Session, cited 
in 46 Stat. 923, c. 847. Cape Fear River, N.C., Report on Preliminary Examination and 
Survey of Cape Fear River, Above Wilmington, N.C., with View to Construction of 
Lock and Dam About 15 Miles Below Fayetteville, House Documents, Seventy-first 
Congress, Third Session, 1930-1931, No. 786; Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1934, 
Seventy-fourth Congress, First Session, 1935, No. 7, Part 1, 393; Report of Chief 
of Engineers, Army, 1935, Seventy-fourth Congress, Second Session, 1936, Part 1, 

174 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Apparently that project was launched in 1875 with a survey from 
the Dismal Swamp to the Cape Fear River. By 1909 the route from 
Boston to Beaufort had been surveyed. In 1912 the first appropria- 
tion was made for acquiring North Carolina real estate, and from 
then on the battle was joined to extend the distance, deepen the 
channel, and improve the facilities. 25 

From the beginning Small and Simmons had championed the 
project. Which of the two made the greater contribution was per- 
fectly clear to the partisans of each; however, Josephus Daniels 
perhaps gave a reasonable appraisal when he told Small, "Simmons 
did a great work and I think it will be his most lasting monument. 
But . . . any attempt on the part of his supporters to give him full 
credit and deny your initiative would be most unjust. . . ," 26 In any 
case, after Small's retirement from the House in 1919, Simmons was 
the project's principal champion. By 1928 it was almost completed 
from Boston to Beaufort; an appropriation of $6 million had been 
provided to carry it to Wilmington; and Simmons was prophesying 
its early extension to Miami at a cost of more than $125 million and 
was dreaming of an inland water route all the way from Maine to 
Mexico. 27 

Although Simmons probably made his greatest contribution to 
North Carolina through the Commerce Committee, he owed his na- 
tional reputation more to his service on the prestigious Senate Finance 
Committee. He was appointed to that committee in 1908 when the 
Republicans controlled the Senate. As usual he took his responsibility 
seriously and spent uncounted hours in becoming one of the nation's 
leading authorities on tariffs and taxes. Indeed studying a tariff 
schedule was his idea of pleasant reading. He soon discovered, how- 
ever, that the task was too much for otherwise busy senators, and he 
demanded that minority members of the Finance Committee be 
authorized to call upon experts to help them unravel the intricacies 
of a complicated tariff schedule or revenue bill. This realization that 
important committees needed expert advice led to the creation in the 

25 For early history see Congressional Record, Sixty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
1915-1916, 5462-5464. 

26 Daniels to John Small, October 15, 1930, Josephus Daniels Papers, Division of 
Manuscripts, Library of Congress, hereinafter cited as Daniels Papers. For a brief 
treatment of Small's contribution and his differences with Simmons, see Mary Louise 
Elder, "The Political Organization and Techniques of John H. Small" (unpublished 
master's thesis, Duke University, 1958). 

27 Hearings Before the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, 70th Con- 
gress, 1st Session on S. 1760, a Bill to Increase the Capital Stock of the Inland Water- 
ways Corporation (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1928), 9-13; Con- 
gressional Record, Seventieth Congress, First Session, 1927-1928, 3595-3612. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 175 

1920's of an important institution, the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
a bipartisan body with an expert staff which was designed to supply 
members of both houses factual data on revenue legislation. 28 

In the early twentieth century, the tariff was as lively an issue as 
civil rights or foreign aid in the 1960's, and Simmons found himself 
in the midst of a battle for tariff reform. Here is not the place to tell 
the story of the tariff fiasco of 1909— but it did serve to educate Sim- 
mons. He learned the need for a mastery of detail, for compromising 
on small points, and for combining with dissident groups in order 
to win partial victories. 

The debate of 1909, moreover, brought out Simmons' pragmatic 
attitude toward issues. The official Democratic position as described 
in the party platform of 1908 was for a tariff for revenue only and for 
lumber to be on the free list. 29 Simmons called for general tariff duties 
to raise necessary revenue but also specific duties to protect those 
products "which most need to be protected against unequal foreign 
competition. . . ." 30 In the vote he deserted the majority of his party 
and voted for a higher duty on lumber. For this certain Democrats 
accused him of treachery. Simmons countered by arguing that he 
would have voted for lower duties on lumber had it not been clear 
that the majority was going to raise duties including those on products 
essential for consumers and farmers in North Carolina— as he put it 
"if we must have protective tariffs, I was determined that the lumber- 
men of my section should share in [the] benefits." 31 

Simmons succeeded to the chairmanship of the Finance Committee 
when Wilson became President in 1913. Some of the more progressive 
Democrats considered Simmons unduly conservative and had opposed 
his appointment. Actually they did not understand Simmons— for he 
should not have been labeled progressive or conservative or liberal 
or what have you. He was a practical Democratic politician who 
would legislate according to the particular situation in which he found 
himself. By 1913 he had made himself an authority on the tariff and 
as a Democratic senator he accepted the responsibility of pushing 
through a program which the Wilson administration could display 
to the voters. 

In this case a dry-as-dust tariff debate was colored by accusations 
of undue influence from pressure groups. The House, guided by Oscar 

38 Author's interview with Leon Fuquay, March 31, 1955; author's interview with 
Alexander M. Walker, December 9, 1958. 

29 Kirk H. Porter and Donald Bruce Johnson (eds.), National Party Platforms, 
1840-1960 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1961), 146. 

30 Speech in the Senate, April 28, 1909, quoted in Rippy, F. M. Simmons, 228. 
91 Rippy, F. M. Simmons, 50. 

176 The North Carolina Historical Review 

W. Underwood of Alabama, produced a moderate bill and passed 
it on to the Senate. Here Simmons' Finance Committee reduced the 
rates even more, and the Senate goaded by Wilson and maneuvered 
by Simmons put a measure on the books which was the lowest since 
the Civil War. The Underwood-Simmons tariff, the only significant 
statute that bears Simmons name, brought accolades to both leaders 
from Wilson and also brought the statement from the Washington 
Post that "Mr. Simmons, heralded originally as a conservative, has 
come forth with his radical colors flying in the breeze." 82 

Simmons made an even more significant contribution in the meas- 
ures (for taxes and liberty bonds) which were passed between 1917 
and 1919 to finance the war effort. Imagine the situation: involve- 
ment in a distant war— millions of men to be transported overseas with 
unlimited supplies, ships, munitions— how to finance such a war then 
without precedent? From 1866 to 1917 federal expenditures had run 
well under $1 billion a year. In 1917 they ran about $2 billion; in 
1918 more than $12.5 billion, and in 1919 $18.5 billion, an annual 
expenditure not to be exceeded until 1942. 33 Understandably con- 
troversies in which the Finance Committee was headlined developed 
over fiscal policy; and as usual Simmons took a moderate position. 

He told the story of a wealthy constituent who lived in New York 
and who "later became a humanitarian." In 1916 this man had 
advocated entering the war, saying that the people would pay the 
cost willingly. After the first revenue measure was passed, however, 
he rushed into Simmons' office and claimed that the Congress had 
"gone stark mad/' "You are ruining us," he said. At this point Simmons 
"told him that he could count himself fortunate if we merely took his 
income" and that before the war was over "a Capital levy might be 
necessary." In Simmons' view, the wealthy had to pay the great bulk 
of the war's cost but, as he put it, "I believe just as strongly . . . [that] 
patriotic duty require [s] that every man, rich or poor, should pay his 
part. . . ." 34 

The Wilson years brought to a high point Simmons' senatorial ca- 
reer. In 1918 he lost his chairmanship when the Republicans carried 

83 Bailey to Simmons, September 10, 1913, Simmons Papers; Washington Post, Octo- 
ber 2, 1913; Arthur S. Link, Wilson: The New Freedom (Princeton: Princeton Univer- 
sity Press, 1956), 177-197. 

33 Expenditures of the federal government in 1865 were $1,297,555,000, the largest to 
that date. The lowest point after that date was in 1878 with $236,964,000. Annual ex- 
penditures then fluctuated upward to $760,587,000 in 1915. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington: U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 1960), 718. 

34 Rippy, F. M. Simmons, 63-64; speech in Senate, August 10-11, 30, 1917, quoted in 
Rippy, F. M. Simmons, 404. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 177 

both the House and Senate and from then until he left the Senate, he 
was ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, and for a part of 
that time, ranking Democrat in the Senate. 

The period could not have been a particularly happy time for him. 
By 1920 he was sixty-six years old and frequently ill. In 1926 what 
he thought was a severe case of poison ivy which spread all over his 
face turned out to be shingles. He was in continuous pain and got no 
relief for months until surgeons cut a facial nerve. 35 

During the leisurely Coolidge years, from 1923 to 1929, Congress 
was in session for an average of only four or five months a year, and 
Simmons was able to spend long periods on his New Bern farms. 
Although he loved New Bern, he had his troubles since many farmers 
did not enjoy prosperity even in the twenties. Simmons himself oc- 
casionally had good tobacco crops, but frequently "the boll weevil got 
his cotton." 36 He was in debt and had difficulty in paying his taxes, 
not to mention the taxes of his colored tenants. 37 

In spite of age and catastrophe, however, Simmons strengthened 
his reputation as a legislator and authority on public finance during 
the 1920's, particularly in the field of taxation. Here he was at his 
legislative best. He knew all the tricks of the parliamentary trade, as 
well as the foibles of his political enemies and friends. The Senate 
situation was made to order, moreover, for the skilled strategist. In 
spite of Republican majorities, there were always about a dozen 
Republicans who bolted the party so frequently that they were known 
as "Sons of the Wild Jackasses." Senators like George Norris, Robert 
La Follette, and Hiram Johnson might vote with their party, go their 
own independent way, or, horror of horrors, even vote with the 

The architect of Republican tax policy was Secretary of the 
Treasury Andrew William Mellon, Pittsburgh industrialist, art collec- 
tor, and millionaire— and the "Sons of the Wild Jackasses" disliked 
millionaires even more than they did Democrats. As early as 1921, 
when the first postwar revenue bill was passed, Simmons joined the 
elder La Follette in modifying a Mellon-backed measure. 38 

35 Fuquay to Daniels, October 4, 1926, Daniels Papers; Mrs. F. M. Simmons to 
Hampton [October 17, 1926], memorandum for the press, December 6, 1926, Simmons 
Papers; H. R. Bryan to Bailey, March 19, 1927, Bailey Papers. 

38 Billy Leinster to Hampton, August 18, 1923; Hampton to Mrs. J. R. Stuart. 
October 14, 1924, Simmons Papers. 

37 J. R. Westbrook to Simmons, August 2, 1921; Simmons to Westbrook, May 31, 
1921; Hampton to Thomas H. Battle [March ?, 1925], Simmons Papers. 

38 Belle C. La Follette and Fola La Follette, Robert M. La Follette (New York: Mac- 
millan Company, 2 volumes, 1953), II, 1034-1037; News and Observer, May 4, 1924. 

178 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The coalition of Democrats and Independents won several sig- 
nificant changes in that bill, and from then through 1928, Simmons 
spent much of his time battling it out with the Republican opposition. 
In 1924 he succeeded in getting the Senate to accept his version 
rather than that of Mellon. As the News and Observer happily re- 
ported: "Simmons' Liver Regulator has become standard in the 
Senate. It is now called Simmons' tax regulator. It is warranted to 
prevent over-fattening of the already pudgy purses/' 39 In this bill 
his supporters included the "Sons of the Wild Jackasses"; as a result, 
he was acquiring the reputation of a radical, and some of his North 
Carolina business friends began to fear that in his zeal to defeat 
Mellon he might create a tax structure that would be hard on them. 
They need not have feared. While Simmons fought the Republicans, 
he kept his eyes firmly fixed on what effect each tax law would have 
upon the people he knew in North Carolina. As Hampton reassured 
a Greensboro industrialist, "I would bet you almost anything within 
my command that the reduction that Senator Simmons will finally 
advocate will save you more money than if Secretary Mellon's pro- 
posal should be adopted in toto." 40 

Indeed as the battle developed in 1926, it appeared that Simmons 
was trying to outdo Mellon in a demand for tax reduction, and in 
fact, he probably was. He apparently suspected that Mellon wanted 
to save the largest tax reduction for 1928 so that the Republicans could 
get the credit for it just before the presidential election of that year. 
Simmons with his political antenna sensitively tuned to such ma- 
neuvers was determined that whatever tax reduction was possible 
should take place in 1926— two years before the presidential election. 41 

In 1926 Simmons won two important revisions in the measure 
which had the support of the administration. One of these was a sub- 
stantial reduction in surtaxes on citizens whose incomes were between 
$20,000 and $100,000, those who as Simmons put it "constitute an 
overwhelming majority of the prosperous and successful citizens of the 
United States who are themselves actively engaged in business" and 
"the great rank and file of North Carolina industries." 42 

Simmons' support of this reduction in surtaxes upset the "Sons of the 
Wild Jackasses," and, also the News and Observer, which now con- 
sidered him a traitor to the cause of more equitable taxation. Bis 

"News and Observer, May 6, 1924. 

40 Hampton to H. S. Richardson, Vick Chemical Company, Greensboro, July 28, 19 4, 
Simmons Papers. 

41 Greensboro Daily News, January 11, 1926. 

42 [Washington Star], clipping, about January 18, 1926, Simmons Papers. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 179 

position on inheritance taxes alienated them even more. A provision 
of the bill, for which Simmons and his colleague Overman battled 
successfully, reduced the high rates of 1924 on inheritance to the 
lower rates of 1921 and made the new provision retroactive to 1924. 
Simmons argued on this point that he was not opposed to estate taxes; 
he merely thought that the states should levy such taxes, and that he 
thought it "inequitable to apply the high rates of the 1924 law to 
those estates where the decedent happened to die while the 1924 law 
was in operation." 43 Clearly if Simmons' revisions should win, the 
estates of those who had died between 1924 and 1926 would receive a 
neat windfall. An interesting thing about this provision was that of the 
twenty-four or so wealthy men who had died between 1924 and 1926, 
the largest estate was that of the entrepreneur, James B. Duke. 44 

Although there was much misinformation abroad at that time about 
the provisions of the Duke Endowment, it was clear that the retro- 
active provision would save the Duke estate many millions of dollars. 
Simmons, defending the provision, pointed out x hat in the case of the 
Duke Endowment, it would not help millionaires, but the beneficiaries 
of the endowment, and that those aided would be not only Duke 
University, of which he and Senator Overman happened to be 
alumni, but also various other educational institutions, as well as 
hospitals and "superannuated Ministers." Commented Norris: "And 
the whole fund . . . will go to the benefit of superannuated million- 
aires"; yet Simmons and his supporters had the regular Republicans 
with them in the Senate and could outvote the Republican indepen- 
dents. In the House the opposition was outmaneuvered. 4 "' As Jonathan 
Daniels described it— when the vote was announced, Simmons' face 
was lined with a contented grin. " 1 knew what was going to happen,' 
he said later. 'I have been pretty close in Conference with them over 
there.'" 46 

As the election of 1928 approached, Simmons' prestige was high. 
Wrote Cameron Morrison to Simmons in 1926, "I do not think you 
ever stood higher in the esteem of your constituents, or of the whole 
country, than you do now." 47 Few probably doubted that he would 

43 Greensboro Daily News, January 17, 28, 1926. 

"Jonathan Daniels in the News and Observer, February 22, 1926. 

45 Congressional Record, Sixty-ninth Congress, First Session, 1925-1926, 3666-3706. 

48 Daniels in the News and Observer, February 24, 1926. 

47 Morrison to Simmons, January 19, 1926, Simmons Papers. Much of the remainder 
of this essay is drawn from two articles by Richard L. Watson, Jr., "A Political Leader 
Bolts: F. M. Simmons in the Presidential Election of 1928," North Carolina Historical 
Review, XXXVII (October, 1960), 516-543, and "A Southern Democratic Primary: 
Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930," North Carolina Historical Review, XLII (Winter, 1965), 

180 The North Carolina Historical Review 

be elected for another six-year term in 1930. In fact, however, he was 
not safe politically. He was seventy-four years old and not in good 
health. Many of his ablest friends had died; young politicians were 
challenging his leadership. In 1920 O. Max Gardner had run a sur- 
prising race for governor against Cameron Morrison whom Simmons 
had supported. Josiah Bailey, articulate and brilliant, although claim- 
ing undying loyalty to Simmons personally, had kicked over the traces 
and run for governor in the primary of 1924, even though he knew 
that Simmons favored Angus W. McLean. McLean, with Simmons 
on his side, won, but rumors were rife that Simmons had come to an 
understanding with Gardner that McLean would get the nod in 1924— 
so long as Gardner could have a clear field in 1928. If Simmons had 
ever had a high-powered machine, by 1928 it was certainly not hitting 
on all its cylinders, and the election of that year reduced it to a mis- 
cellaneous pile of nuts and bolts. The center of political gravity in 
North Carolina was shifting from New Bern to Shelby. 

Although local factors explain some of the weaknesses in the 
Simmons organization, it was the presidential candidacy of Alfred E. 
Smith that led to its final breakdown. Simmons had supported William 
G. McAdoo in a bitter nominating battle against Smith in 1924. In 
1927 McAdoo withdrew from the running— thus removing Smith's 
principal antagonist for the Democratic nomination in 1928. Even in 
Raleigh a huge crowd roared its approval of a resolution endorsing 
Smith's candidacy. 

Simmons, however, refused to be reconciled. He considered Smith 
"the weakest candidate the Democrats could nominate," 48 and he 
became convinced that Smith's followers in North Carolina were out 
to destroy him. Thus in bitter local battles in the state he and his 
friends fought Smith and succeeded in choosing delegates to the 
Democratic National Convention most of whom were pledged to Cor- 
dell Hull. Indeed, Simmons told Senator Walter George of Georgia, 
a day or two before the convention, that Smith's nomination was im- 
possible. When pressed by George as to what he would do if Smith 
were nominated, Simmons replied, "I've been a Democrat too long 
to quit the party. If the party is going to march down into the open 
grave, I who have been a Democrat all my life, will march down into 
the grave with it." 

And he seems to have held this traditional position of party 
regularity even after Smith's nomination until Smith appointed John J. 
Raskob as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Demo- 

Simmons to Edward N. Hahn, February 25, 1928, Simmons Papers. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 181 

cratic professionals in the South had hoped to de-emphasize the facts 
that Smith was a wet and a Roman Catholic. The appointment of 
Raskob upset that strategy. Raskob was not only a Roman Catholic 
and a wet— but a crusading wet. Moreover, his connections with the 
Du Ponts and the General Motors Corporation made it difficult to 
attract the anti-big-business vote. Then to cap the climax, it was dis- 
covered that Who's Who listed Raskob as a Republican! 

Raskob's appointment shocked even Smith's supporters such as 
O. Max Gardner and Josiah Bailey. To Simmons it was the last 
straw. He was now convinced that Smith had no interest in the posi- 
tion of the South in the Democratic party, and he feared that the 
election of an urban northerner with Raskob managing the party 
machinery would destroy the traditional party. Shortly after Raskob's 
appointment, Simmons came into the office of a young New Bern 
lawyer, soon to be elected to the House of Representatives, and said: 
"For thirty years I have been loyal to my people; they have been good 
to me, and now that I am on the brink of the grave, before I would 
turn on them and put a ballot in the box for Al Smith, I would suffer 
my right hand to be severed." 

On August 20 came Simmons' shocking announcement: he would 
support the state ticket— but, as he put it, "the party platform has 
been repudiated, the party rebuilt, the issues reframed and forces of 
privilege and license now are dominating and controlling the national 
machinery." To Simmons, Smith had bolted. "Under the circum- 
stances," announced the Democratic senior senator from North Caro- 
lina, "I shall vote for neither candidate." 

Immediately, Simmons and a few of his friends, notably his secre- 
tary Frank Hampton, threw themselves into putting together an anti- 
Smith organization in North Carolina. As the campaign developed, 
some made it a battle as much for or against Simmons as for or against 
Smith. Said a political advertisement: 


Keep your Ideals 

of Southern Democracy 

Support Simmons 

Accept His Platform 

the Democratic State Ticket 
the Democratic District Ticket 

182 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the Democratic County Ticket 
But Vote Against Al Smith 


When the votes were counted, Hoover had won overwhelmingly 
and had carried southern states which had not gone Republican since 
Reconstruction. In North Carolina Smith had won in the rural, strongly 
Democratic East, but Hoover carried the state by 62,000 votes out of 
635,000 cast. 

Unquestionably the three factors usually given to explain Smith's 
defeat— his Catholicism, his hostility to prohibition, and his association 
with Tammany Hall— played a significant role in alienating North 
Carolina voters. The Ku Klux Klan was out in force against Smith; 
campaigning by some church leaders, the Anti-Saloon League, and 
the WCTU highlighted sometimes the religious issue, sometimes the 
prohibition issue, sometimes both. On the other hand, Smith had 
thousands of enthusiastic supporters who discounted his stand on 
prohibition, and Democratic professionals such as O. Max Gardner 
and Cameron Morrison, on opposite sides in 1920, and A. W. McLean 
and Josiah Bailey, rivals in 1924, eloquently endorsed Smith and 
pleaded the cause of religious toleration. 

But these factors alone are not enough to explain Smith's defeat. 
Indeed, perhaps of most significance was the confusion in the Demo- 
cratic state organization. Simmons' anti-Smith organization may have 
been just enough to turn the state to Hoover. Yet the political power 
of Simmons and his friends had never been complete, and diverse 
individuals and groups were ready to take advantage of any chance to 
destroy it. Simmons' refusal to support Smith was the chance, and 
from the point of view of practical politics, Simmons' action seemed 
indefensible. How could a professional politician with a record of forty 
years simply reeking with regularity fail to support his party's presi- 
dential candidate? 

The answer is probably a combination of politics, pride, and prin- 
ciple. Simmons seems to have had no religious bias, so the Catholic 
question, as such, was insignificant to him. On the other hand, al- 
though he was not particularly dogmatic about prohibition, he prided 
himself on his record on that issue and he considered Smith's position 
on it immoral. Simmons' position, however, was more complex than 

49 See political advertisement in Greensboro Daily News, November 3, 1928. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 183 

his stand on any single issue; it involved what he saw happening to 
the Democratic party. To Simmons, Smith and Raskob represented the 
growing influence of the urban northeast and midwest. Catholicism, 
repeal of prohibition, immigration, Tammany, racial equality— these 
were largely symbols of something alien to a man who had been a 
professional Democratic politician for more than forty years while the 
South was the dominant element in the national party. It was not the 
Democratic party as he had known it, and he did not propose to sup- 
port its national representative. 

Simmons was proud of his record, and thought that it was strong 
enough to nullify any ill effects of his action in 1928. Yet such hopes 
were vain; before the votes in 1928 had been counted, he had alienated 
some of his friends and thus given his enemies their chance. 

Their chance lay in part in statistics and in part in the obvious fact 
that Smith's defeat was in a presidential election in which both Demo- 
crats and Republicans voted. Republican presidential candidates al- 
ways received a healthy vote in North Carolina. In 1924, for example, 
Republicans had polled 190,000 votes. In 1928, with a total of 635,000 
votes cast, Hoover defeated Smith by a margin of 62,000 votes. A 
sizable Republican vote plus a relatively small anti-Smith Democratic 
vote of about 60,000 to 80,000 carried the state for Hoover in 1928, 
but a whopping 286,000 Democrats refused to follow Simmons and 
voted for Smith. 

Now Simmons faced the unpalatable fact that in less than two years 
he would be up for renomination, and in the primary only registered 
Democrats could vote. If he was to win, he obviously must persuade 
100,000 or so Smith voters to vote for him. Thus while still rejoicing 
over Smith's defeat, he announced that he himself was "a better Demo- 
crat than ever," that he planned to be "buried in a Democratic coffin," 
and that what was needed was a reorganization of the party "on the 
basis of the great principles of Democracy enunciated by Jefferson . . . 
and exemplified by Cleveland, Tilden, and Wilson. . . ." 50 

The implied assumption that he was the one to take the lead in 
reorganizing the party was accepted by his friends but infuriated his 
enemies. Many of the younger Democrats, and some of the older ones, 
labeled Simmons' action in 1928 as plainly a bolt and considered that 
his long record in the party simply made the sin unforgivable. "Sim- 
mons has passed out the political password long enough," growled one 
party worker. 51 

60 News and Observer, November 8, 19, 1928; telegram from Simmons to Robin King, 
November 7, 1928, Simmons Papers. 

61 S. W. Andrews to Bailey, May 30, 1928, Bailey Papers. 

184 The North Carolina Historical Review 

At this point Josiah W. Bailey entered the picture once more, quietly 
taking the lead in sounding out anti-Simmons sentiment. Relations 
between these two men had been gradually deteriorating for a decade. 
Yet as late as mid- June, 1928, Bailey insisted that he would never per- 
sonally oppose Simmons. Bailey was a Smith supporter from the be- 
ginning, however, and he became increasingly irritated by Simmons' 
actions. Throughout 1929 Bailey tried to get others to oppose Sim- 
mons, especially Walter P. Stacy, Chief Justice of the State Supreme 
Court and W. J. Brogden of Durham. Bailey was obviously wrestling 
with his conscience because of his pledge never to run against Sim- 
mons; yet, as he put it, he had predicated that pledge "upon 
[Simmons'] remaining loyal to the party/' 

On January 2, 1930, Bailey announced his candidacy. The announce- 
ment was greeted enthusiastically by his friends, but Simmons too 
received prompt assurances of support. Some described Bailey as 
"easy picking"; one praised Simmons as the "leader who navigated the 
ship of state through the troubled waters of the nineties." 3 "Stay in 
Washington, keep your money, and let your friends . . . look after the 
election," he was advised. His hopes were boosted by pledges from 
former Smith supporters, and two of these, Charles Hines of Greens- 
boro and John Langston of Goldsboro, he put at the head of his cam- 
paign organization. 

Such optimism was based essentially upon the assumptions that 
Simmons' services to the party would be remembered, and that the 
"moral forces," that is, the dries, women's groups, and the religious 
leaders, would rally to him as they had in 1928. The Anti-Saloon 
League and the WCTU did support Simmons, some quite emotionally, 
in some fashion associating his reelection with the continuation of 
Prohibition. At the same time, Simmons' followers were appealing to 
religious and women's groups; "missionary work" as a member of his 
campaign committee who was also secretary of a woman's missionary 
society called it. Unfortunately for Simmons, Bailey's followers could 
remind the ladies of the record of the two men on woman suffrage. 
Bailey had been outspokenly in favor of it in 1917, at a time when 
Simmons had forthrightly told the advocates of the woman suffrage 
amendment that he would not support it. 52 

An important part of Simmons' campaign technique was for him 
personally to stay above the campaign, and to let his record "speak 
for itself." He did have a legitimate reason for staying in Washington. 

62 Simmons to Mrs. T. D. Jones, May 25, 1918, Jones-Southgate Family Papers, Duke 
Manuscript Department. 

Furnifold M. Simmons 185 

As ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee he would play a 
leading role in the special session of Congress which Hoover called 
in 1929 to review the tariff and to cope with the agricultural crisis. 
Frank Hampton made sure that the North Carolina press described 
in detail Simmons' leadership in revising the tariff, gaining new ap- 
propriations for improving the rivers and extending the intracoastal 
waterway, supporting various projects to aid the depressed farmer, 
and at a time when there was a veritable crusade against chain stores 
in the rural areas, urging their investigation by the Federal Trade 

He was standing on his record, but as a professional politician, he 
must have known that his record alone would not reelect him. In 
previous elections, he could rely on his friends— "his machine" as his 
enemies called it— but those of his friends who were left were now 
divided— even some of his oldest friends such as Cameron Morrison- 
were now bitterly opposed to him. And very few of the young hopefuls 
saw their future in the party with him. 

Actually the new Simmons organization worked well in only a few 
sections. As the primary approached even Frank Hampton became 
pessimistic: "ungrateful skunks . . . who have eaten bread from the 
Senator's table," he wrote on one occasion, "are fighting him all over 
the state and trying to bring a career to a close in humiliation and de- 
feat and break his heart and throw him out in his old age." 

Hampton and some others of his friends worked day and night, 
writing letters, telephoning, drafting broadsides, raising money, try- 
ing to obtain absentee ballots, hiring workers, claiming that Bailey's 
supporters were registering Negroes as Democrats in Raleigh and 
elsewhere, and that Bailey himself was neither sound on prohibition 
or on the racial question. Although Bailey denied these charges, he 
himself, advised by his campaign manager, C. L. Shuping of Greens- 
boro, tried to alienate as few Democrats as possible and let his sup- 
porters ring the changes on Simmons' treachery to the party. 

Primary day, June 7, 1930, was cloudy and stormy in North Caro- 
lina. A record 325,000 Democrats voted. Simmons was beaten by 
70,000 votes— he carried only 16 of the 100 counties. Factors too num- 
erous to mention here explain Simmons' defeat. It is probably, how- 
ever, that had he not helped organize the anti-Smith Democrats in 
1928, the seventy-six year old senator would have begun his sixth 
term in 1931. In any case, a political career of fifty years had come to 
an end. 53 

68 Overman to Bailey, June 13, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

186 The North Carolina Historical Review 

How can one assess the career of this man who held the office of 
U.S. senator longer than has any other North Carolinian? As Cash put 
it, "In him one discovers nothing of the flashing eye, the craggy mein, 
the Bryanesque shine which one instinctively associates with the Lord 
God Jehovah. . . ." He was a small man physically, with rumpled 
clothes, particularly unprepossessing in his later years when illness had 
emaciated him, and though he could speak effectively, he was cer- 
tainly no spellbinder— yet he did have that undefined magnetism. 

To say though, as Cash did, that his salient achievement was "to 
set North Carolina on a path that . . . must lead finally to Republican 
rule," was ridiculous. He got along well with some Republicans but 
he was neither the first nor last southern Democrat to make a virtue 
of that. He occasionally did not vote with the majority of his party— 
but American political parties rarely demand bloc voting. No one who 
really knows his record could accuse him of being a Republican. 

By focusing on idiosyncracies, his record can look inconsistent- 
even demagogic. But in sum it was a constructive record: waterways, 
roads, and forest reserves, tariffs, taxes, the postal system, and agricul- 
ture benefited from his effectiveness as a legislator; and an un- 
counted number of his constituents benefited from the fact that his 
office was hospitable and sympathetic. 

He miscalculated badly in 1928. He thought that he would be re- 
nominated in 1930 even if he refused to support the national ticket. He 
insisted that he was acting on principle, and his friends insisted that 
he was acting on principle. Yet, it was principle which did not look to 
the future but was, rather, rooted in the late nineteenth and early 
twentieth centuries; principle that let local interests take precedence 
over national and lacked the world view; that did not understand the 
complexities of such a limited problem as alcohol or of such a funda- 
mental one as that of the city; that saw no incongruity in second-class 
citizens in a democracy, a position which made future solution of the 
racial problem more difficult; that accepted a political philosophy of 
rewards and punishments and the electioneering trickery of less than 
fastidious friends. Yet was he not speaking the language and reflecting 
the attitudes of his generation? How many of his political contem- 
poraries approached these problems differently? 

Although he had his enemies, he inspired confidence and even 
affection among many North Carolinians for many years— from the 
practical politicians who knew all the courthouses such as A. D. Watts 
and Frank Hampton, to the industrialist such as Junius Parker who 
described his achievements as being "greater and more admirable 

Furnifold M. Simmons 187 

than those of any North Carolinian ever in public life," 54 to the urbane 
William G. McAdoo who went so far as to say that he deserved to be 
in the White House. 55 

Cash sarcastically explained Simmons' success in maintaining his 
Jehovah-hood by his skillful use of white supremacy slogans and 
"Great Moral Ideas," and the financial support received from indus- 
trialists for favors rendered. 56 Admittedly he did use white supremacy 
slogans and talked about his support of the moral forces, and he was 
friendly with some industrialists; yet he also had a reputation for 
friendliness to labor, and he fought the power companies with little 
less fervor than George Norris when it appeared that the farmers' 
interests in the Tennessee Valley development were being threatened. 57 
It is clear that he personally did not profit financially from his poli- 
tics. He left office a poor man. 

One of his closest associates once said that he had "never known 
a public man who strove more earnestly to do the right thing," and 
that Simmons' "great influence is founded upon the fact that our 
people trust his judgment. . . . And being so founded ... it will last 
the length of his life." 

How events change the mind of man! It was Josiah Bailey who so 
judged Simmons in 1914 and he had added, "He is the one public 
man of our time in North Carolina whose place is secure." 58 

M Junius Parker to Simmons, June 9, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

66 McAdoo to Simmons, June 16, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

M Cash, "Jehovah of the Tar Heels," 312. 

w News and Observer, June 10, 1930. 

68 Bailey to the editor of the Greensboro Daily News, August 14, 1914. 


Edited by Paul H. Bergeron* 

The ties of family relationships have served as a hallmark of the 
American scene for generations. Especially was this evident in the 
nineteenth century and in the region below the Mason-Dixon line. The 
letters which follow 1 demonstrate the concern within a family for the 
welfare of one of its members. 

James K. Polk, the oldest child of Samuel and Jane Knox Polk, had 
upon the death of his father in 1827 inherited responsibility for the 
well-being and education of three brothers and an unmarried sister, 
all minors. 2 In the fall of 1832, before returning to Washington, D. C, 
as a delegate to the House of Representatives from Tennessee to the 
second session of the Twenty-second Congress, James K. Polk made 
arrangements for his brother, seventeen-year-old William H. Polk, to 

* Dr. Bergeron is assistant professor of history at Vanderbilt University, Nashville. 

*A11 of the letters used in this article are with the James K. Polk Papers, Manu- 
scripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., unless otherwise indicated. 
Five of the letters were included in Elizabeth Gregory McPherson (ed.), "Unpublished 
Letters from North Carolinians to Polk," North Carolina Historical Review, XVI 
(January, April, 1939), 68-69, 72, 74, 77, hereinafter cited as McPherson, "Letters to 
Polk," and are being reprinted at this time in the interest of continuity. The spelling 
and punctuation of the date and place of origin of each letter have been modernized 
and standardized. For purposes of clarity paragraph divisions and punctuation have 
been supplied in certain instances. To conserve space, complimentary closes and 
signatures have been omitted. Concluding paragraphs of the letters dated November 
28, December 6, and December 13, 1832, have been omitted because they do not pertain 
to William H. Polk's schooling. 

2 Samuel Polk was survived by his widow, Jane Knox Polk, and ten children: James 
Knox, b. 1795; Jane Maria, b. 1798; Lydia Eliza, b. 1800; Franklin Ezekiel, b. 1802; 
Marshall Tate, b. 1805; John Lee, b. 1807; Naomi Tate, b. 1809; Ophelia Clarissa, b. 
1812; William Hawkins, b. 1815; Samuel Washington, b. 1817. At the time the three old- 
est girls were already married. James K. Polk and James Walker, the husband of Jane 
Maria, were named coexecutors of Samuel Polk's "large estate, including over fifty 
slaves and thousands of acres of land." Mrs. Frank M. Angelotti, "The Polks of North 
Carolina and Tennessee," New England Historical and Genealogical Register, LXXVII 
(1923), 221-223, hereinafter cited as Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and 
Tennessee" (1923) ; Charles Grier Sellers, Jr., James K. Polk, Jacksonian, 1795-181*3 
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 114-115, hereinafter cited as Sellers, 
James K. Polk. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 


William H. Polk, a younger brother of James K. Polk, who came to North Carolina in 
the fall of 1832 to enter Hillsborough Academy in anticipation of enrolling at the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Photograph from the files of the Depart- 
ment of Archives and History. 

go to North Carolina in anticipation of enrolling at the university just 
as he himself had done in 1815. 3 In preparation for joining a class at 
Chapel Hill, William first went to Hillsborough in order to attend the 
Hillsborough Academy, popularly known as the Bingham School. 4 

8 For an account of James K. Polk's experiences as a student at the University of 
North Carolina, see Charles Grier Sellers, Jr., "Jim Polk Goes to Chapel Hill," North 
Carolina Historical Review, XXIX (April, 1952), 189-203, hereinafter cited as Sellers, 
"Jim Polk Goes to Chapel Hill." 

4 After serving one year as principal of the Hillsborough Academy, the Reverend 
William Bingham, an honor graduate of the University of Glasgow, moved to Mount 
Repose, eleven miles northwest of Hillsborough, and opened a private school. Upon 
the death of the Reverend Bingham in February, 1826, his son William James Bing- 
ham, gave up his profession as a lawyer, took over the school at Mount Repose, and 
finished out the term. On January 1, 1827, William James Bingham became principal 
of the Hillsborough Academy and served in that capacity until 1844. It was during 
the tenure of the latter that the academy began to be called the Bingham School; in 
1864 a son of William James Bingham and two other relatives secured a charter from 
the legislature for the incorporation of "The Bingham School." Charles L. Coon (ed.) f 
North Carolina Schools and Academies, 1790-181*0: A Documentary History (Raleigh: 
North Carolina Historical Commission [State Department of Archives and History], 
1915), vi-viii, 280-295; Ruth Blackwelder, The Age of Orange: Political and Intellectual 

190 The North Carolina Historical Review 

James K. Polk to [William Polk] 5 

Columbia, November 2, 1832 

My Dear Sir 

On monday last brother William started to Hillsborough N.C. to. school. 
He set out and will travel in company with Laura & her two children 
(brother Marshall's widow & children) 6 to Charlotte, & will there take 
the stage. I have written to Mr Bingham to take charge of him in his 
school, and to instruct him in the studies preparatory to his admission into 
the University — where if he does well, I intend that he shall graduate. 

In your letter to me at Washington last winter in answer to one which 

I had written to you upon the subject, your advice was, to send him to that 

Leadership in North Carolina, 1752-1861 (Charlotte: William Loftin, Publisher, 1961), 
122-123; Samuel A. Ashe and Others (eds.), Biographical History of North Carolina: 
From Colonial Times to the Present (Greensboro: Charles L. Van Noppen, 8 volumes, 
1905-1917), VI, 65-82, passim, hereinafter cited as Ashe, Biographical History of 
North Carolina. 

6 Letter is in possession of Mrs. T. P. Yeatman of Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee. William 
Polk (1758-1834), the recipient of this letter, was a first cousin to Samuel Polk, the 
father of James K. and William H. Polk. A native of Mecklenburg County, William 
Polk served with distinction in the Continental line during the American Revolution. 
After the battle of Guilford Courthouse, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant 
colonel and was henceforth known as "Colonel Polk." Colonel Polk was an active and 
influential member of the board of trustees of the University of North Carolina for 
forty-two years (1792-1834), and he was author of the infamous "monitor law," which 
was despised by students and faculty alike. He moved to Raleigh in 1800 and died there 
in January, 1834. The probation of his will in Columbia, Tennessee, revealed that he 
owned 100,000 acres of land in that state. According to a granddaughter "General 
Jackson was a small boy at school with Colonel Polk at Charlotte, North Carolina. They 
were life-long friends in North Carolina and Tennessee." Ashe, Biographical History 
of North Carolina, II, 361-368, passim; Kemp P. Battle, History of the University of 
North Carolina (Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton, 2 volumes, 1907-1912), I, 304-309, 
hereinafter cited as Battle, History of the University of North Carolina; William 
Bruce Turner, History of Maury County, Tennessee (Nashville: Parthenon Press, c. 
1955), 244, 256, hereinafter cited as Turner, Maury County; Mary Polk Branch, 
Memoirs of a Southern Woman u Within the Lines" and a Genealogical Record (Chi- 
cago: Joseph G. Branch Publishing Company, 1912), 77, 80, hereinafter cited as 
Branch, Memoirs of a Southern Woman. 

6 Marshall Tate Polk had died at the age of twenty-six in the spring of 1831, leaving 
his widow and two children, Roxana (called Eunice Ophelia), aged eight, and Marshall 
Tate, Jr., aged eighteen months. Immediately after their marriage on October 27, 
1827, Marshall and his bride, Laura Wilson Polk, had moved from Charlotte to Ten- 
nessee. In a letter to J. K. and Sarah Polk dated January 5, 1828, Jane Polk reported: 
"Your brother Marshall and sister Laura is living with me. I think Laura is a very 
fine agreeable girl. She is kind and good to me. She is none of your high dashers, she 
is mild and modest, converses sencibly and loves to go to Church. . . ." Laura was 
apparently unhappy in Tennessee, however; in a letter to William A. Graham dated 
March 31, 1829, Alfred Graham reported that "Marshall Polk is practicing law here 
and is living with Joe Willson at Charlotte. His wife is determined not to go back to 
Tennessee." Marshall was the second son Jane Knox Polk had lost in 1831, and she 
would lose yet another before the year's end. Mrs. Frank M. Angelotti, "The Polks 
of North Carolina and Tennessee," New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 
LXXVIII (1924), 48, hereinafter cited as Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and 
Tennessee" (1924); J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton (ed.), The Papers of William Alex- 
ander Graham (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 4 volumes, 1957- 
1961), I, 170, 187; Jane Polk letter quoted in Sellers, James K. Polk, 116; Angelotti, 
"The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee" (1923), 221-223. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 191 

school, & if sent you kindly offered to exercise over him whilst there a 
superintending controul & guardianship. I have now to ask the favour 
of you to do so, as far as may be necessary and your convenince will 
permit. William is a well disposed boy, & is by no means deficint in point 
of intellect, but on the contrary may be considered a boy of very respect- 
able talents ; With proper application he may maintain a respectable stand- 
ing at any institution. I am not aware that he is as yet addicted to any 
bad habits — except that of a very great disposition to extravagance in 
dress, in attending theaters — and other places of light amusement. I have 
written to Mr Bingham that he must be restrained in this respect, and 
with a view more effectually to accomplish it I have not given him much 
money to start with. His expenses will be paid to Charlotte & he will have, 
when he takes the stage at that place $60. — to bear his expenses to Hills- 
boro' — to buy such books as he may need &c. He has his winter & spring 
clothes & need buy none before summer if then. I am thus particlar, 
because I am satisfied his inclination to extravagance & idleness is the 
point of danger. To give you some idea of the extent of these, I was a 
few days before he left home astonishmnt [sic] to learn the amt. of his 
accts. in the stores & shops in town ; For a period of but little more than 
two years (since July 1830) his accounts amounted to near $700.00. He 
had deatt [?] without our knowledge in almost evry store in town. Upon 
making the discovry I gave him a severe reprimand, & he promised to 
reform & do better. He promises to be studies [sic'] & to avoid extrava- 
gance. Still how[ev]er I do not think it prudent to rely altogether on his 
promises. I wish him to have what money may be proper & necessary for 
his comfort, & no more, & thus put it out of his power to spend. With a 
view to this I have conversed with Lucius 7 who thinks it may suit you, 
for me to pay to him here, such amounts from time to time as may be 
necessary, and for you to advance to him as he may need. Will such an 
arrangement suit you? If not I will make remittances to you, if I can get 
the favour of you to control him, in his expenditures & furnish him money 
only when you think he needs it — & ought to have it. I feel great solicitude 
in regard to him — & if he can be restrained from extravagance, by de- 
priving him of the possession of much mony at a time he may & I hope 
will become studious & make a steady respectable man. One thing is 
certain — that if he is not restrained in this respect, there is evry prospect 
that he will be a spendth [r] if t — and possibly become abandoned to other 
vices. He is addicted to no other bad habits — drinks I believe not a drop. 
I have told him and have also written to Mr Bingham that he is not 
permitted whilst there to contract a single account. Wh [atev] er he needs 
he must pay for when he gets it. I wrote to Mr. Bingham also & requested 
him to draw on you for money for him, when he thought it necessary, and 

7 Lucius Polk, a son of Colonel Polk, had gone to Tennessee in 1823 to manage his 
father's extensive land holdings there. At the time of this letter he was serving as a 
member of the state senate. According to Mary Polk Branch, " 'Hamilton Place/ the 
residence of General Lucias [sic'] Polk was built by my grandfather, who sent work- 
men from North Carolina in wagons, to prepare a home for his son and his bride, who 
was to be Mary Easton [sic"\, niece of Mrs. Andrew Jackson, the wife of the president. 
The marriage took place at the 'White House,' and was very pleasing both to General 
Jackson and my grandfather. . . ." Sellers, James K. Polk, 93 ; Turner, Maury County, 
246; Branch, Memoirs of a Southern Woman, 77. 

192 The North Carolina Historical Review 

that he must be the judge when he did need it. I told William this. He 
said he was perfectly willing that you should be the judge of what he 
ought to spend, and that he would obey you in that respect, and also in 
any thing else that you directed, — but was unwilling to be controlled by 
Mr Bingham. You can manage that as you think best, — and can make 
the remittances when necessary — either to Mr Bingham (which I think 
safest if he will submit to it) or to himself. I leave that to you. In a word, 
if you will manage and controul him in evry respect whilst there as you 
would your own son, you will confer an additional lasting obligation. I 
have written to you as an old frind of the family, freely in regard to him, 
and from you have concealed nothing. I have thought that by your influ- 
ence & control over him — he might be reclaimed — and I doubt not he will 
be. Mr Bingham I believe takes a few boarders in his own family & I have 
written to him (if convenint) to take William as one of them, where he 
can be under his immediate observation. 

William will probably be at Hillsboro' about the time this reaches you 
& I suggest (if it be not too much trouble) that it might be well for you 
to write to him & give him such advice, (in a gentle way) as you might 
think proper. If it is vacation when he arrives, I have instructed him to 
review his studies — & be prepared to enter a class at the beginning of the 

I saw Lucius a few days ago. All well. 

N B I start to Washington in a few days. Write to me to that place. 

William J. Bingham to James K. Polk 

Hillsborough, November 20, 1832 
Dr. Sir 

Your brother Wm. arrived on Sunday last. The letter in advance of him 
had reached me in due time. I regret much that my rooms were all 
occupied, so that it was impossible for me to accommodate him. One of 
my boys leaves in a month, and Wm. can fill the vacancy. Until then, I 
have placed him at Mrs. Burgwin's, where his cousin George Polk 8 boards. 
I think it rather probable, that like most boys, he will prefer absence 
from the immediate and constant supervision of his teacher, & will there- 
fore incline to remain in his present quarters. In which event, it will be 
necessary, either for you to write again on that subject, or for me to make 
use of your first communication. 

Of Wm.'s acquisitions I am not yet able to speak positively, having 
given him a very slight examination. 9 He wishes to enter a class preparing 
for the Freshman in the Univ. — next July — The effort seems rather her- 

8 George Washington Polk was a son of Colonel Polk, therefore a cousin of William 
H. Polk. Turner, Maury County, 247. 

9 As one of the state's leading educators in the pre-college schools, William James 
Bingham was well versed in the requirements for entrance into the university. He was 
not only an alumnus but was an active participant in the affairs of the university. See 
Battle, History of the University of North Carolina, I, 300, 339-340, 346, 618, 648, 694. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 193 

culean; but energy and capacity may achieve it. At all events the effort 
will be of service to him, & I feel disposed to encourage it. It implies 
unremitted labor during both the winter and summer holidays, and this 
he professes willingness to encounter. He can join the class on Latin, and 
I will give him private tuition in Greek. The necessity of his taking 
private tuition, makes it additionally desirable, as a matter of convenience, 
that he should be an inmate in my family : and yet I should be unwilling 
to receive him, were he not perfectly willing to come. I wish this matter 
settled at once, as there are already two applications for the vacancy 
above alluded to, and I am disposed (should it be perfectly agreeable to 
himself) to give the preference to the brother of my departed friend. 10 

It is our custom to require board & tuition by the session in advance. 
Board is 10$ pr month — $53.33% for the first session of the year — 5% 
months — and $46.66% for the second session — $% months. Tuition is 
$15.50 a session. Vacation tuition is equal to that of the session. However 
$15.50 shall cover your brother's tuition for the remaining month of the 
present session as well as the vacation. The next session will commence 
about the 20th of Jany. His board & tuition charges 'till then will amount 
to $35.50. — for the next session $68.83%. Books will not cost much, & you 
will know what allowance to make for clothing. From the above data 
you will be able to form an estimate of the advance proper to be made 
at the beginning of the next session. 

May I request you to inform The Hon Wm. B. Shepard 11 of N.C. — 
that his letter is reed. & the arrangement made perfectly convenient & 

P.S. 'Board' including lodging, fuel, candles & washing $10 pr month. 12 

William H. Polk to James K. Polk 

Hillsborough, November 21, 1832 
Dear Brother 

I arrived here last Sunday and went to see Mr B.[ingham] and he said 

10 The allusion here is probably to the late Marshall Tate Polk. Marshall and William 
James Bingham graduated from the university together in the class of 1825, with first 
and second honors, respectively. Battle, History of the University of North Carolina, 
I, 300. 

11 William Biddle Shepard of Elizabeth City served four terms as a congressman, 
1829-1837. Shepard had been a student at the university with James K. Polk, but was 
expelled in September, 1816, during his senior year for publicly attacking President 
Robert H. Chapman's policy on the War of 1812, which many students believed to be 
unpatriotic. Shepard moved temporarily to Philadelphia, the home of his cousin 
Nicholas Biddle, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. Shepard served 
as a member of the board of trustees of the University of North Carolina from 1838 to 
1852. The message in Bingham's letter may have reference to James Biddle Shepard, 
who graduated from the university at the top of his class in 1834. Biographical Direc- 
tory of the American Congress, 177U-1961 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing 
Office, 1961), 1591; Ashe, Biographical History of North Carolina, VII, 421-422; Battle, 
History of the University of North Carolina, I, 236; Sellers, "Jim Polk Goes to Chapel 
Hill," 200-201. 

13 James K. Polk's endorsement on the envelope of this letter states that he answered 
it on November 30, 1832. Unfortunately that letter is not available. 

194 The North Carolina Historical Review 

that there was a class that would enter college in the lowest class next 
June and that he would put me in it and if I could keep up I would enter 
at the same time. I spoke to him about Boarding; he said that he could 
not board me this session but procured it for me at a place about a mile 
from town. George Polk is boarding at the same place and is in the same 
class and I would prefer boarding at the same place next session with him. 
He says that he has been boarding there for two years. Write me if you 
have any objections. 

Sister Laura found her mother 13 very ill and did not expect her to live 
long when I left there. Little Marshal [1] improved very much on the way. 
Mr Fulsom would start back on last Monday. The horses stood the trip very 
well. Write me as soon as you receive this so I will get it before the 
begining of next session. 

P S Give my love to Sister Sarah 14 and tell her she must write to me. 15 

James K. Polk to William Polk 16 

Washington, November 28, 1832 

My Dear Sir 

Since my arrival here, I have received a letter from brother William 
advising me that he had reached Hillsborough and had commenced school 
with Mr Bingham. Before I left home I troubled you with a long letter in 
regard to him, and among other things desired to know whether it would 
be convenint for you to furnish the funds which he may need from time 
to time, upon our paying the same amounts to Lucius in Tennessee ; or if 
that would not be convenint, whether if we make the remittances to you, 
you would do us the favour, to superintend his expenditures & controul 
him in that respect, as well as in evry other which you might deem ad- 
visable. I wrote to you fully and freely what our fears were in relation to 
him, and that our wish was that you should controul him whilst at school 
pr[e]cisely as you would your own son. I have as yet received no answer, 
and have to ask the favour of you to write me as soon as convenint on the 
subject. I hope in the request which I make I do not impose too much 
trouble upon you ; but if it be too inconvenint for you to attend to it, write 
to me immediately. 

13 Laura's mother was Mary Wood Wilson, the wife of Judge Joseph Wilson. Ange- 
lotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee" (1924), 48. 

14 Sarah Childress Polk, a native of Murf reesboro, Tennessee, and James K. 
Polk were married on New Year's Day, 1824. Sarah Childress was a student at the 
Moravian Academy in Salem for one year but was called home in 1819 because of 
the death of her father. In 1844 Marshall Tate Polk, Jr., went to live with the James 
K. Polks, who were childless. Laura Wilson Polk had in the meantime married Dr. 
W. C. Tate of Morganton. Sellers, James K. Polk, 93, 75-76, 459; McPherson, "Letters 
to Polk," 76n. 

15 James K. Polk indicates that he answered this letter on November 28, 1832; his 
reply has not been uncovered, however. 

18 Letter is in the Polk-Yeatman Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University 
of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 195 

William H. Polk to James K. Polk 

Hillsborough, December 5, 1832 

Dear Brother 

I received your letter this evening in which you stated that it was your 
opinion that it would be to my advantage to board with Mr Bingham. 
I would prefer boarding with George Polk as [ ?] I told you before because 
I know no persons here and he is in the same class and appears a little 
nearer to me than any person else. He has been very clever to me since 
I have been here and Mr Bingham has so many litle boys with him that 
I could not study half as well as I can where I am. I intended to go down 
to Raleigh and spend a few days while the asembly was in session and 
then return here and say private lessons every day to Mr Bingham. I can 
study better here ; there will be no persons here [to] disturb me. I know 
I can learn as much here as I could at Mr Binghams if any thing more 
than I could there. 

As for paying the $35.50 cts I have not got that much. It took $13 to 
bring me from Charlotte here. I was obliged to have a hat when I got 
here because mine was worn out and not fit to ware. That cost me eight 
dollars and I have spent ten dollars for books that I was obliged to hav. 
I hav not got more than twenty dollars & I had to buy a pair [of] shoes 
when I got here for I forgot a pair in Charlotte and several other litle 
things that I had to get. I hav not spent a cent but for things that I was 
obliged to have. I have ben as saving as I possibly could be. You must 
write me when you receive this. Give my respects to Sister Sarah. 

P. S. I am determined to keep up with the class if stud[y]ing will do it. 17 

William Polk to James K. Polk 

Raleigh, December 6, 1832 

Dear Sir 

I am in receipt of your letters of the 2d and 27th [28th] of Novr. The 
former would have been answered sooner had I been certain as to where 
to address it. The latter gave me the first information of Williams having 
reached Hillsborough. Doctor Polk 18 leaves th[e]n in the morning, by 
whom I write to my Son G W. P. directing him to ask William to ac- 
company him to Raleigh, to spend his vacation which commences some 
time next week. 

17 James K. Polk's endorsement on the envelope indicates that he answered this 
letter on December 13, 1832. The written reply is apparently unavailable. 

w Dr. William Julius Polk was a son of Colonel Polk. He graduated from the uni- 
versity in 1813 and later obtained an M.D. degree from the Philadelphia Medical 
University. Though living in North Carolina at this time, he moved to Maury County, 
Tennessee, in 1836 and settled in Columbia in 1837. Turner, Maury County, 245-246; 
Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee (1923), 251; Battle, History 
of the University of North Carolina, I, 788. 

196 The North Carolina Historical Review 

I will with pleasure take charge of such funds as may be placed in my 
hands for the use of your Brother; and will deal it out to him with the 
liberality & eoconimy as I do to my Son, which has been sparing, but 
sufficient for all his wants. The transmission of funds from Tennessee to 
N.C. are entirely stoped except through some friend who may be comning 
from there to this place — hence it will not be convenient to make the 
advances, depending on the uncertainty of a regular remnssion [ ?] . Checks 
on the Bank of N.C. or any of the Eastern U.S. Banks can be negoeiated 
here without dificulty. 

James K. Polk to William Polk 19 

Washington, December 13, 1832 

Dear Sir 

Enclosed I send you a draft on the U.S. Bank at Philadelphia for one 
hundred dollars — towards defraying brother William's expenses at the 
school at Hillsboro\ Mr Bingham writes to me that his expenses — board 
& tuition both included, from the time he entered school until the 20th of 
Janry — at which time the next Session commences will be $35.50 — and 
that his board and tuition for the next Session will be $68.83% cents. 
The board and tuition he writes to me are by the rules of the school to 
be paid in advance at the commencement of each Session. William's 
expenses from home to Charlotte were paid, by the man I employed to 
drive the carriage, and at that place he had $60.00 to bear his expenses 
to Hillsboro' — buy books &c. He writes to me that he has already spent 
upwards of $40. and has less than $20. rema[i]ning. I mention this, that 
you may have an eye to him. He needed [?] no clothing and I apprehend 
he may have commenced a scale [?] of expenditures corresponding with 
that in which he had been in the habit of indulging for the last year or 
two. I am much gratified that you are willing to take him under your 
controul as well in regard to his expense as to evry thing else. He is 
apprized that you are to direct him in all things, — that he is to look to you 
for money when he needs it, and professes an entire willingness to obey 

I wrote to Mr Bingham requesting him to permit him to board in his 
family. In his answer he agrees to do so after the expiration of the present 
Session, and states that in the meanwhile he had placed him at the same 
boarding house at which your son is. William has recently written me a 
pressing letter to permit him to remain at the same boarding house with 
George during the next Session. My impression is that it would be to his 
advantage to board with Mr. Bingham, but like most other boys he will 
probably be unwilling to be constantly under the eye of his teacher. I 
would thank you to direct him where he is to board, — and he will I have no 
doubt do as you may say. 

When I return home I will make you a further retainer. 

Letter is in possession of Mrs. T. P. Yeatman. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 197 

William Polk to James K. Polk 

Raleigh, December 26, 1832 
Dear Sir 

Your letter of the 13th instant covering a check on the U.S. Bank for 
$100 has been reed. At the time of the rect. William was with me having 
come down with George when the Session closed. He stayed with us about 
ten days, and returned with the intention of attending his studies so as 
to enable him to enter College in July next, and assured me he would make 
every exertion to accomplish that object. He informed me that it was 
your wish that he would board with Mr. Bingham and solicited my per- 
mission that he might remain where he had been at Mr. Burgwins. He 
says & George supports the fact; that at Mr Binghams the rooms are 
small and uncomfortable; & that a great proportion of the boarders are 
small boys. Under these representations, I gave William liberty to remain 
with Mr. Burgwin at where he had been. 

William informed me that he had expended all the money that was 
given him, but about $10 or 15 in getting to Hillsbo. & in the purchase 
of Books. I therefore gave him the 100 sent by you to me for his board &c. 
for the next Session telling him that it behooved him to act eoconomcal 
[sic~\ for that unless he could show a satisfactory disbursement, he had 
got all that he might expect untill next Session. I think he promises to do 
well. His conduct whilst here, was such as entirely to meet my approbation. 

Mr. Bingham's misgivings concerning William H. Polk's ability to 
pass the entrance examinations at the university as expressed in his 
letter of November 20, 1832, to James K. Polk, were well founded. 
Although William's name appears on the attendance rolls for prayers 
and classes for the August, 1833, and the January, 1834, terms, he did 
not matriculate. 20 The following correspondence took place after 
William was enrolled at the university, probably classified as an "ir- 
regular" student, 21 and apparently after Colonel Polk and James K, 

20 When James K. Polk took the entrance examination at the university he was given 
credit for all of the freshman and half of the sophomore year. Sellers, "Jim Polk 
Goes to Chapel Hill," 191. 

21 The university faculty reports for the years 1833 and 1834 are missing, and it has 
not been possible to determine precisely what were William H. Polk's scholastic 
deficiencies. On the class attendance rolls he is listed for the August, 1833, term as a 
student in the classes of [James Hogg] Norwood, [William Nelson] Mebane, and 
[Thomas Lapley] Armstrong; and for the January, 1834, term as a student in the 
classes of [Walker] Anderson, [J. DeBerniere] Hooper, Norwood, and Mebane. All of 
the foregoing were classified as tutors except Anderson, who was "Professor of Rheto- 
rick and Logick." William H. Polk was not listed among the twenty-seven regular 
students of the freshman class who were examined in December, 1833, and June, 1834. 
George W. Polk was listed as a regular student for the August, 1833, term but during 
the December, 1833, examinations he was "disapproved on Greek," and his name was 
dropped from the list of regular students for the January, 1934, term. See University 
of North Carolina Faculty Reports, 1831-1841, University of North Carolina Student 
Records, 1833-1849, unnumbered pages 157-163, Southern Historical Collection; Staff 
of the North Carolina Collection (compilers), "Register of the Officers and Faculty of 
the University of North Carolina, 1795-1945" (Chapel Hill: unpublished manuscript, 
1954), North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Battle, 
History of the University of North Carolina, I, 421. 

198 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Polk had discussed the situation vis-a-vis in Tennessee during the 
summer or early fall of 1833. 22 

William Polk to James K. Polk 

Raleigh, October 22, 1833 
Dear Sir 

On my getting to Chapel Hill I sent for William, and upon interogating 
him with regard to his wants and debts, I found both to be considerable. 
Since which I learn that he is quite destitute of shirts and some other 
cloathing: which I deemed necessary he should be furnished with im- 
mediately. I wrote him last week to come down and to bring his unpaid 
accounts. He has done so and I find his debt to one house for goods &c. 
upwards of $80 — that his board for the present session unpaid; and I 
presume upon some other small debts. He has an account with a Merchant 
Taylor of $40 — and for purchases made of a Merchant about $19, making 
an agregate debt due of about $180. His want of cloathing I considered 
as indespensable, and have therefore advanced him the whole of the money 
sent by me viz. $80 which as you will observe not half meet his present 

William H. Polk to James K. Polk 

Chapel Hill, November 25, 1833 
Dear Brother 

I received your letter of 21st Oct in which you said you did not know 
how it was that I spent more money than Col Polk's son. I can account 
for that very easy. He gets all his cloth's from home and I have to buy 
mine. If you will send me money enough to pay all my debts and 150 dollars 
at the begining of every session I will not ask you for any more and I think 
it will be little enough. 

I owe about thirty dollars more for my winter cloths. 23 I would not have 
gone in debt for them if I could have got them any other way. If you intend 
to let me have money to pay my debts you must send it to me as soon as 

" In the letter immediately following Colonel Polk mentions "money sent by me" for 
William H. Polk; see also the next-to-the-last paragraph of the letter from James K. 
Polk to Colonel Polk dated January 5, 1834. 

23 At a meeting of the board of trustees of the university on December 19, 1827, an 
earlier regulation establishing the proper habiliments for students was altered to pro- 
vide "That the dress of the students shall be uniform and shall consist in summer of 
a Coatee in color of a grey mixture and of waistcoat and trowsers of white, and in 
winter of Coatee, waistcoast and trowsers of a dark grey mixture. — The use of Boots is 
prohibited, and it is recommended to the Students to consult plainness, economy and 
neatness in every part of their apparel. — " "Minutes of the Trustees of the University 
of North Carolina," December 4, 1823-December 19, 1840, typed transcript in the 
North Carolina Collection, 82-83. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 199 

you can for they are pushing me for it and I canot study when I have 
such things on my mind. 

Genl Polk of Salsbury 24 passed through here on yesterday and said that 
he saw sister Laura and the children and they was very well. Give my 
love to sist [sic] Sarah and tell her she must excuse me for not answering 
her letter and I will write to her in a few days. 

James K. Polk to William Polk 25 

Washington, January 5, 1834 

Dear Sir 

I have received several letters from brother William since I have been 
here, the last of which was written at Raleigh on the 26th ult. Supposing 
it possible that he might still be at Raleigh I inclose to you a letter for 
him. If he has returned to the University, will you forward it to him. 

In regard to his debts contracted without my authority and against my 
express order, I have written to him, that I have no authority as executor 
to pay them, but that if he will write to me that he will contract no more 
debts, and that the excess over $300 pr. annum shall be paid out of his 
own estate, that I would make arrangements to have the money forwarded 
to you for him. I have written to him, that for the future he must limit 
his expenses within $300 pr. year and that if he exceeds that sum the 
excess must be paid out of his own estate. 

I have to request you however to furnish him with the amount which 
may be necessary for his next Session's tuition, board and other necessary 
expenses. His debts already contracted must remain over until I hear from 
him. If it is convenint for you to make the advance to him — of the amt. 
which may be necessary for the next Session — I will thank you [to] do so, 
and write to me the amt. that I may cause it to be remitted to you. 

William writes to me that he wishes to leave the University and go to 
Nashville. I have answered him that he cannot be permitted [to] do so, 
but must remain. I have written him further, as indeed I had before done, 
that he must employ his vacations in bringing up his Greek studies — so as 
to enable him to be in regular standing in his class. I hope he will do so, 
though I confess I have my fears he will not. I hope you will give him 
such advice and directions as you may think right. 

Your son Rufus 2 * spent a few days here during the holidays. I took him 
to the President's who treated him with great kindness, invited [him] to 
dine, &c. and I dined with him at the President's. He was very well and 
is I think a very promising boy. 

81 Thomas Gilchrist Polk was a brigadier general in the state militia and was quite 
active in politics at this time. Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee," 
(1923), 261. 

36 Letter is in the Polk Family of North Carolina Papers, Library of Congress. 

28 Rufus King Polk was nineteen years of age at the time. After Colonel Polk's 
death he moved to Tennessee. Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee" 
(1923), 215. 

200 The North Carolina Historical Review 

'iiite -cjfe, ; ^lilllllllfcv- . jllill|. : ■:.;.';.,::'■■■■ •••■■■■■■.',:■. 

<V^tS«2i? ttsvt^J s2s&t-tf ^<$*&/tD €*s-?tfs*L*> ?& *9~*'<?*i*A*-<y sZs*&v*zt£&t<c* 

^^^«*««4E CastZ*!^ cU-*-*-* ***ASL, &>. 




Pictured above is a partial reproduction of William H. Polk's letter to James K. Polk 
dated "January 16th 1834" and transcribed in full in this article. The original letter 
is in the Library of Congress. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 201 

I am sorry to learn that you have been in feeble health since you left 
Tennessee, but hope when I next hear from you to learn that your health 
is restored. 

Mrs. P. desires to be kindly remembered to Mrs. P. and yourself. 

William H. Polk to James K. Polk 

Chapel Hill, January 16, 1834 

Dear Brother 

I received your letter before I left Raleigh and the ten dollars which you 
inclosed and if I had not have got that I would have been in a bad way 
for Col Polk was very sick when he received your letter to. furnish me 
with money for the presant session and was not able to transact any buis- 
ness [sic] whatever. And I remained several days thinking that he would 
get better and be able to furnish me with the money but he died on the 
13th. He had a continual vometing so that nothing would lay on his 
stomach. He died very easy and retained his senses till the last moment 
and I thought that it would be better for me to return to Chapel Hill and 
study by myself so as I would not be to[o] far behind my class. And I 
will not be able to join college until I receive money from you to pay my 
expences. I owe the dialectic society $15 for my entrence in the society 
which canot be postponed 27 and I would be very much obliged to you if 

27 Since 1796 there had existed on the campus of the university two literary societies 
which eventually assumed the permanent names of the Dialectic and the Philanthropic. 
Although organized primarily to encourage students to form lasting friendships and 
to promote useful knowledge by development of proficiency in the arts of debating, 
composing, and declaiming, the societies for all practical purposes exercised control 
over the entire student body and demonstrated "one of the earliest successful examples 
of student government." A student was virtually obligated to join and maintain mem- 
bership in one of the societies in order to reside on the campus. In addition to the 
entrance dues, which were $8.00 at the time William H. Polk became a member in 
August, 1833, the societies assessed and collected fines from members for every 
infraction of the rules of the university and of the society. Fines were graduated 
upward in accordance with the seriousness of the infraction, the heaviest penalty, 
$6.00, being levied for not wearing the society's badge. Some of the other fines were: 
laughing so as to be heard by his neighbor, talking without permission or excuse, 
leaning his chair upon any part of the Hall, 10 cents; taking more than one volume 
from the library under one envelope, being absent from prayers without good excuse, 
being unnecessarily absent from recitation, throwing hard substances in passages, 25 
cents; playing ball in the passages or in the student rooms, sitting in the windows of 
the Hall, reading the same composition twice in the Hall, 50 cents; being absent from 
the society's weekly meeting without sufficient excuse, casting personal reflections on 
any member, not paying arrears to the society before entering at the commencement 
of college, $1.00; playing cards (except during exams) or being intoxicated, $5.00. 

The minutes of the Dialectic Society and the society's account book reveal that 
William H. Polk was fined frequently from August, 1833, to June, 1834, and while no 
specific descriptions of the infractions are given in the minutes, the attendance books 
for prayers and classes indicate that for one or both he was absent or tardy many 
times. At the society's meeting of May 28, 1834, William and three others were re- 
ported for intoxication and fined $5.00; at the next meeting, however, on June 4, 1834, 
all four of the fines were repealed. 

At the March 5, 1834, meeting of the society, William Polk and William Hooper 
were chosen for vacancies on the library committee; on March 26, 1834, William and 

202 The North Carolina Historical Review 

you will send it on to me when you send me the money to pay my tuition 
board et cetera which will amount to $101.00 including the fifteen dollars 
for the Society which you must send on as soon as you can conveintly 
[sic~\. I received a letter from Samuel and he said all was well and the 
Jackson College 28 had 166 scollars. Give my love to sister Sarah and tell 
her she must excuse me for not writing to her — and I will give her my 
reasons for not doing so in a letter before long. 

P.S. I would not request you to send me the $15 for the society if I could 
dispence with it on any terms. 

James K. Polk and James Walker to William H. Polk 29 

Washington, April 16, 1834 

Dear William 

We have consulted together much, and anxiously endeavored to come to 
a conclusion in relation to you that we hope may have a beneficial influence 
on you now & on your destiny through life. In reading over your letters it is 
painful to perceive that your whole mind seems to be ingrossed to effect 
the object of getting money. We unfortunately too perceive that you seem 

George Polk were chosen committeemen; and on May 21, 1834, William was elected to 
the office of censor-morum. 

The Dialectic and Philanthropic societies each provided a private library for the use 
of its members, and the societies competed enthusiastically in the matter of acquiring 
and maintaining the largest number of books. Not only were society funds used to 
finance the purchase and binding of books, the members took it upon themselves 
individually and in groups to donate books to the society's library. Among the titles 
contributed to the Dialectic Society library by William, alone or with others, were the 
novels, Delaware or the Ruined Family and Emma; a nine-volume set of Hume's 
History of England; and the Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolutionary War. 

On November 6, 1833, William Polk was assigned to open a debate the following 
week in the affirmative on the topic, "Is the Salic Law Either Wise or Just?," and 
Hamilton Hargrove was instructed to take the opposing side. The debate was postponed 
at the next meeting in order that the members might hear a reading of the laws, and 
there is no indication in the minutes that the debate was ever held and, if so, whether 
the vote was in the affirmative or the negative. 

The society's account book shows that William made a payment of $15.00 on January 
30, 1834, and that when he left the campus in June, 1834, he still had a debit balance 
of $4.56. 

See Dialectic Society Papers (Minutes, Treasurers' Reports, Addresses, Dues Book, 
By-Laws), Southern Historical Collection; Hallie S. McLean, "The History of the 
Dialectic Society, 1795-1860 (unpublished master's thesis, University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill, 1950), passim. 

28 Samuel Washington Polk was the youngest child of Samuel and Jane Knox Polk. 
He died in February, 1839, at the age of twenty-one. Angelotti, "The Polks of North 
Carolina and Tennessee" (1923), 221-223. 

In 1829 the Manual Labor Academy, located in Maury County, was granted a char- 
ter by the state legislature. It opened in 1830 at a location about two miles south of 
Spring Hill. In 1833, when the school moved to another location, its name was changed 
to Jackson College. Finally in 1836 the school was moved to Columbia, where it re- 
mained until it was destroyed by fire in 1863. In 1848 the Masonic lodges of Maury 
County took over the management of the school. Turner, Maury County, 129-130. 

29 James K. Polk and James Walker were brothers-in-law and coexecutors of Samuel 
Polk's estate. This letter, written in Walker's hand, is probably a copy of the original. 

William H. Polk Goes to School 203 

to think that the money you ask for is your own, and that you have a right 
to do as you please with it, and pledge yourself to account fully when you 
are of age. It is true that if we were to yield to your wishes we would be 
but permitting you to spend your own money, but we should violate a most 
sacred duty, which we owe you, our own family reputation, and betray 
the confidence reposed in us by your father. You may think this strange 
language — it is nevertheless true, and if you come to be the man we yet 
hope you will, in after life you will be satisfied that the course we find it 
necessary and our duty now to pursue, although it causes you present 
mortification, is the only one calculated to promote your real interests and 
to make you a valuable man. You have strength of mind and talents to 
make you an ornament to our family, if your energies and faculties are 
properly applied and directed. It is with pain we perceive that your whole 
mind seems to be engaged in extravagant desires to spend money and from 
the amount you request to pay off your debts, we fear that you are getting 
into habits that must inevitably destroy you. 

We have upon deliberation concluded upon a course that imperious duty 
and necessity rend us necessary to pursue towards you. We propose to in- 
form you what that course is, and to assure you that we are unalterably 
determined to adhere to it — we will endeavor to do you all the kindness 
we can until you come of age — then what you are to be depends on your- 

In the first place then we yield to your wishes to leave Chappel Hill at 
the end of the present session, 30 and go to Nashville, there enter College 
regularly with a view to graduate at that or some other good institution — 
as to money we will be rigid, we will under no circumstances permit you 
to have more than $300 pr year— which must pay for your education, and 
all expenses — our own experience satisfies us that this amount of money is 
sufficient to render your appearance genteel and you in every way comfort- 
able. This sum will be annually furnished you by Mr. Walker in such man- 
ner as you may need, and will you may rely on it not be exceeded. As we 
deem this amount sufficient, and that more would be injurious to you, we 
shall take pains to prevent your mother from letting you have even a cent 
and all others from advancing with a hope of your repaying when of age. 
We have also consulted upon the propriety of paying your present debts in 
North Carolina incurred without our sanction, and have concluded not to 
do so 31 — your creditors must wait until you are of age, and then depend on 
your honor — we are aware that this decision will be mortifying to you, but 
it is one produced by painful necessity. If mortification, and want of money 
will alone teach you the proper use and value of money and time we must 
inflict the pain. When you left Tennessee for North Carolina we informed 
you that we could not sanction or furnish the means of spending more 

30 A local resident of Chapel Hill reported that William left about the middle of 
June, 1834. See letter from Benton Utley to James K. Polk, February 6, 1835, quoted 
in McPherson, "Letters to Polk," 191. 

31 At least one Chapel Hill merchant suffered because of this decision. In a letter 
to James K. Polk dated February 6, 1835, Benson Utley complained that William's 
account had been running since March, 1833, and that William had not remitted the 
balance of $125.99 upon reaching Nashville as he had promised. See McPherson, "Let- 
ters to Polk," 191. 

204 The North Carolina Historical Review 

than $250 — which we considered sufficient for a decent support with proper 
care at the school at Hillsborough. If when we lay down rules of ex- 
penditure, you totally disregard our wishes and injunctions mortifica- 
tions arrives [?] to us all it must be borne. And your pledge to pay all 
excess honorably when of age does not relieve us of the duty to withhold 
the means of your destruction. You may think it strange that we say that 
furnishing you money agreeably to your wishes would destroy you — but 
the fact is so, if you were furnished money freely, or your contracted debts 
paid — the time you ought to employ in hard study would be taken up in 
extravigance [sic] and frolic & the acquisition of destructive habits. 

We fondly hope that you will yet live to see the day, when by the salu- 
tary influence of the rigid course we have deemed it our duty to pursue, 
you will have arrived at a station in society, to feel the benefit of it and 
properly appreciate our motives. 

The sequel to the story revealed in these letters must be told briefly. 
William later graduated from the University of Tennessee and was 
admitted to the bar at Columbia, Tennessee, in 1839. He became a 
prominent lawyer m Columbia and represented Maury County in 
the lower house of the General Assembly for two terms, 1841-1845. 
On March 13, 1845, President Polk made his first three diplomatic 
appointments, one of which went to William as charge d'affaires to the 
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. 32 He resigned that post in 1847 and 
served in the Mexican War as a major in the Third Dragoons. After- 
ward William resumed his law practice in Columbia and won a con- 
gressional seat in 1851. He served one term in the House and returned 
to Tennessee. In 1861 he made an unsuccessful bid against Isham 
Harris for the governor's chair. William was married three times, his 
third wife having been Lucy Eugenia Williams of Warren County. 33 
Death came in December, 1862, at the age of forty-seven, thirty years 
after he entered Mr. Bingham's school at Hillsborough. William H. 
Polk was the last surviving son of Samuel and Jane Knox Polk. 


83 "Credences, 1789-1906," III, 116, 123, Department of State, Record Group 59, 
National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

"Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee" (1924), 48-49. 
3 *Angelotti, "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee" (1923), 221-223. 


By William S. Powell* 

Bibliography and Libraries 

EBERT, MYRL. An introduction to the literature of the medical sciences. 
Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Book Exchange, 1965. 106p. 

Philosophy and Religion 

ASBURY, FRANCIS. Francis Asbury in North Carolina, the North Caro- 
lina portions of the Journal of Francis Asbury, with introductory notes 
by Grady L. E. Carroll. Nashville, Tenn. : Parthenon Press, 1965. 300p. 

BRADLEY, DAVID G. Circles of faith. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966. 
239p. $4.50. 

CLELAND, JAMES T. He died as He lived, meditations on the seven words 
from the Cross. New York : Abingdon Press, 1966. 79p. $2.00. 

GATEWOOD, WILLARD B., JR. Preachers, pedagogues & politicians, the 
evolution controversy in North Carolina, 1920-1927. Chapel Hill: Uni- 
versity of North Carolina Press 1966. 268p. $5.95. 

GRAHAM, WILLIAM FRANKLIN. World aflame [by] Billy Graham. 
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965. 267p. $3.95. 

years of service, 1816-1966. Hillsborough: Hillsborough Presbyterian 
Church, 1966. 28p. Free. 

JOHANSSON, CATHERINE B. Concepts of freedom in the Old Testa- 
ment. New York : Vantage Press, 1965. 92p. $2.50. 

KELLAM, IDA BROOKS. St. James Church, Wilmington, North Carolina, 
historical records, 1737-1852, by Ida Brooks Kellam and Elizabeth 
Francenia McKby. Wilmington: [Compilers?], 1965. 158p. $10.00. 

LACY, CREIGHTON, editor. Christianity amid rising men and nations. 
New York: Association Press, 1965. 192p. $2.25. 

LOEB, BEN F., JR. ABC officers' guide to regulation of intoxicating 
liquors in North Carolina. Chapel Hill : Institute of Government, 1965. 
52p. $1.00. 

McCURDY, HAROLD GRIER. Personality and science, a search for self- 
awareness. Princeton, N.J. : Van Nostrand, 1965. 151p. $1.45. 

1 Books dealing with North Carolina or by North Carolinians published during the 
year ending June 30, 1966. 

* Mr. Powell is librarian of the North Carolina Collection, University of North 
Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. 

206 The North Carolina Historical Review 

SHRIVER, DONALD W., editor. The unsilent South, prophetic preaching 
in racial crisis. Richmond : John Knox Press, 1965. 169p. $2.25. 

WALLACE, LILLIAN PARKER. Leo XIII and the rise of socialism. Dur- 
ham : Duke University Press, 1966. 464p. $10.00. 

Economics and Sociology 

ASHMAN, ALLAN. Enforcing municipal ordinances in North Carolina. 

Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, 1966. 50p. $2.50. 
EAST, JOHN PORTER. Council-manager government, the political 

thought of its founder, Richard S. Childs. Chapel Hill: University of 

North Carolina Press, 1965. 183p. $4.50. 
FISHER, BEN COLEMAN. A manual for college trustees. Raleigh : Coun- 
cil on Christian Education, Baptist State Convention, 1965. 67p. $2.50. 
GIL, FEDERICO GUILLERMO. The political system of Chile. Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin, 1966. 323p. $4.95. 
GOLDEN, HARRY LEWIS. A little girl is dead. Cleveland, Ohio: World 

Publishing Co., 1965. 363p. $5.00. 
HOOVER, CALVIN BRYCE. Memoirs of capitalism, communism, and 

nazism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1965. 302p. $8.50. 
HUNTER, FLOYD. The big rich and the little rich. Garden City, N. Y. : 

Doubleday, 1965. 181p. $4.50. 
KWEDER, B. JAMES. The roles of the manager, mayor, and councilmen 

in policy making: A study of twenty-one North Carolina cities. Chapel 

Hill : Institute of Government, 1965. 138p. $2.50. 
LARKINS, JOHN RODMAN. Alcohol and the Negro, explosive issues. 

Zebulon: Record Publishing Co., 1965. 251p. $5.00. 
LEWIS, HENRY WILKINS. The property tax, an introduction for North 

Carolina mayors and councilmen. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, 

1965. lOlp. Free. 
LOGAN, ANDY. The man who robbed the robber barons. New York: 

W. W. Norton, 1965. 260p. $4.75. 
McKINNEY, JOHN C, editor. The South in continuity and change, 

edited by John C. McKinney and Edgar T. Thompson. Durham: Duke 

University Press, 1965. 511p. $10.00. 
MARKHAM, ALLAN W. Pupil transportation in North Carolina. Chapel 

Hill: Institute of Government, 1966. 24p. $1.00. 
PHAY, ROBERT E. Eminent domain powers for cities and counties. 

Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, 1966. 48p. $1.00. 
RANKIN, HUGH FRANKLIN. Criminal trial proceedings in the General 

Court of Colonial Virginia. Williamsburg, Va. : Colonial Williamsburg, 

1965. 240p. $3.00. 
RICHARDSON, WILLIAM PERRY. The handicapped children of Ala- 
mance County, North Carolina, a medical and sociological study by 

William P. Richardson and A. C. Higgins, in collaboration with Richard 

G. Ames. Wilmington, Del. : Nemours Foundation, 1965. 157p. 

North Carolina Bibliography 207 

SANFORD, TERRY. But what about the people? New York: Harper & 
Row, 1966. 172p. $4.50. 

SCOTT, ANDREW M., and Margaret A. Hunt. Congress and lobbies, 
image and reality. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 
1966. 106p. $4.50. 

TATE, THADDEUS W. The Negro in eighteenth-century Williamsburg. 
Williamsburg, Va. : Colonial Williamsburg, 1965. 256p. $3.00. 

WICKER, WARREN JAKE. Arrangements for water and sewerage ser- 
vices. Chapel Hill : Institute of Government, 1966. HOp. $2.00. 

WITT, RAYMOND H. It ain't been easy, Charlie. New York: Pageant 
Press, Inc., 1965. 105p. $2.75. 


CLAYTON, JOHN. The Reverend John Clayton, a parson with a scientific 
mind, his scientific writings and other related papers, edited, with a 
short biographical sketch by Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith 
Berkeley. Charlottesville, Va. : University Press of Virginia, 1965. 170p. 

HERRING, ETHEL. About turtles and things— near Fort Caswell. Win- 
ston-Salem: Author, 1965. 40p. 

STUCKEY, JASPER LEONIDAS. North Carolina, its geology and min- 
eral resources. Raleigh : Department of Conservation and Development, 
1965. 550p. $5.00. 

Applied Science and Useful Arts 
KELLY, PHILIP J. The making of a salesman. New York: Abelard- 

Schuman, 1965. 241p. $5.00. 
WASHBURN, BENJAMIN EARLE. A history of the North Carolina 

State Board of Health, 1877-1925. Raleigh: North Carolina State 

Board of Health, 1966. 102p. Free. 

Fine Arts 

CRAIG, JAMES H. The arts and crafts of North Carolina, 1699-1840. 
Winston-Salem : Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Old Salem, 
Inc., 1965. 480p. $8.00. 

MARKMAN, SIDNEY DAVID. Colonial architecture of Antigua Guate- 
mala. Philadelphia : American Philosophical Society, 1966. 335p. $10.00. 

STIPE, ROBERT E. Perception and environment : Foundations of urban 
design, proceedings of a 1962 seminar on urban design. Chapel Hill: 
Institute of Government, 1966. lllp. $2.50. 

THOMPSON, DOROTHEA SCHNIBBEN. Creative decorations with dried 
flowers. New York : Hearthside Press, 1965. 125p. $6.95. 

BALLANCE, MILFORD R. Poems, words of wisdom. [Raleigh: Edwards 
& Broughton, 1965]. 84p. $3.00. 

208 The North Carolina Historical Review 

CHUNN, LEONA HAYES. Rouse with the dawn. Birmingham, Ala.: 

Banner Press, 1965. 60p. $3.00. 
DENNY, ROBERT EVANS. A triangle of life, poems. New York : Expo- 
sition Press, 1965. 64p. $3.00. 
GARNER, EDWARD DIXON. For all the lost and lonely. [No place:] 

Poetry Council of North Carolina, 1965. 54p. $2.95. 
KAUFFMAN, DOROTHY BELL. The inheritance of my fathers, poems 

of North Carolina and others. New York: Vantage Press, 1965. 70p. 

MANNING, BILL. Poems, booklet one. [Windsor: Gatling & Gatling, 

1966.] 20p. $1.00. 
MERCHANT, FRANCIS. Symbol and fantasy, plays and poems. Fayette- 

ville : College Press, 1965. 126p. 
NIXON, SALLIE. Surely, goodness and mercy. Stanley: Author, 1965. 

NORTH CAROLINA POETRY SOCIETY. Award winning poems, 1964- 

1965. Burlington: N.C. Poetry Society, 1965. 29p. $1.00. 
Past the flame of words. Burlington: Poetry Society Books, 

1965. 29p. $1.00. 

RAMSEY, PAUL. In an ordinary place. Raleigh : Southern Poetry Review 

Press, 1965. 43p. $1.25. 
SCHORR, LAURA HOWELL. In company, poems for devotional use. New 

York: Exposition Press, 1965. 69p. $3.00. 
STEM, THAD, JR. 2 Spur line. Charlotte: McNally and Loftin, Publisher, 

1966. 84p. $4.00. 

STOFFEL, BETTY W. Splendid moments. Richmond : John Knox Press, 
1965. 64p. $2.00. 


GREEN, PAUL ELIOT. Cross and sword, a symphonic drama of the 
Spanish settlement of Florida. New York : Samuel French, 1966. 107p. 

Fiction 3 

BARNWELL, D. ROBINSON. Head into the wind. New York : D. McKay 

Co., 1965. 247p. $4.50. 
BELL, THELMA HARRINGTON. A dash of pepper. New York: Viking 

Press, 1965. 159p. $3.50. 
BETTS, DORIS. The astronomer, and other stories. New York : Harper & 

Row, 1965. 242p. $5.95. 
CARROLL, RUTH ROBINSON. What Whiskers did. New York: H. Z. 

Walck, 1965. Unpaged. $3.00. 
CHAPPELL, FRED. The inkling. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 

1965. 153p. $3.95. 

2 Winner of the Roanoke-Chowan Award for poetry, 1966. 

8 By a North Carolinian or with the scene laid in North Carolina. 

North Carolina Bibliography 209 

DAVIS, BURKE. The summer land. New York: Random House, 1965. 
242p. $4.95. 

DAVIS, PAXTON. One of the dark places. New York: Morrow, 1965. 
342p. $4.95. 

DYKEMAN, WILMA. The far family. New York: Holt, Rinehart and 
Winston. 1966. 372p. $5.95. 

FARRAR, ROWENA RUTHERFORD. Bend your heads all. New York: 
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. 288p. $5.95. 

FLORA, JOSEPH M. Vardis Fisher. New York: Twayne Publishers, 
1965. 158p. $1.95. 

GREEN, LEWIS W. The year of the swan. Asheville: Author, 1966. 29p. 

HOFFMANN, MARGARET JONES. A forest of feathers, by Peggy Hoff- 
mann. New York : Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966. 181p. $3.95. 

HYMAN, MAC. Take now thy son. New York: Random House, 1965. 240p. 

LINNEY, ROMULUS. Slowly, by thy hand unfurled. New York: Har- 
court, Brace & World, 1965. 214p. $4.50. 

MILLER, HEATHER ROSS. 4 Tenants of the house. New York: Harcourt, 
Brace & World, 1966. 119p. $3.75. 

PRICE, REYNOLDS. A generous man. New York : Atheneum, 1966. 275p. 

RUARK, ROBERT CHESTER. The honey badger. New York : McGraw- 
Hill, 1965. 569p. $6.50. 

SLAUGHTER, FRANK GILL. Constantine: The miracle of the flaming 
cross. Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1965. 430p. $5.95. 

TYLER, ANNE. The tin can tree. New York: Knopf, 1965. 273p. $4.95. 

WELLMAN, MANLY WADE. Battle at Bear Paw Gap. New York: 
Washburn, 1966. 184p. $3.75. 

Mystery at Bear Paw Gap. New York : Washburn, 1965. 179p. 


WERTENBAKER, LAEL TUCKER. The afternoon women. Boston: Lit- 
tle, Brown, 1966. 312p. $4.95. 

Literature, Other Than Poetry, Drama, or Fiction 

BREWER, JOHN MASON. Worser days and better times, the folklore of 

the North Carolina Negro. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965. 192p. 

GASKIN, JAMES R. A language reader for writers by James R. Gaskin 

and Jack Suberman. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1966. 251p. 

HARDISON, OSBORNE BENNETT, JR. Christian rite and Christian 

drama in the Middle Ages, essays in the origin and early history of 

modern drama. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. 328p. $7.50. 
HARRIS, WILLIAM OLIVER. Skelton's Magnyfycence and the cardinal 

virtue tradition. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1965. 

177p. $5.00. 

* Winner of the Sir Walter Raleigh Award for fiction, 1966. 

210 The North Carolina Historical Review 

HARTLEY, LODWICK CHARLES. Laurence Sterne in the twentieth 
century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966. 189p. 

HUBBELL, JAY BROADUS. South and Southwest, literary essays and 
reminiscences. Durham: Duke University Press, 1965. 369p. $10.00. 

MARTIN, LISTER ALLEN. Wayside reflections. Lexington : Green Print- 
ing Co., 1966. 96p. $1.50. 

MITCHELL, JOSEPH. Joe Gould's secret. New York : Viking Press, 1965. 
181p. $4.50. 

NASH, LOU A. The crewcut. New York : Vantage Press, 1966. 151p. $3.75. 

PATTERSON, DANIEL W., editor. Folklore studies in honor of Arthur 
Palmer Hudson. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Folklore Society, 1965. 
157p. $3.00. 


DUNSTAN, EDYTHE SMITH, compiler. The Bertie index, for courthouse 
records of Bertie County, North Carolina, 1720-1874. Windsor: 
[Author?], 1966. Unpaged. $25.00. 

HARDEE, DAVID LYDDALL. The Eastern North Carolina Hardy- 
Hardee family in the South and Southwest. [Raleigh: Author, 1965?] 
302p. $6.00. 

HUMMEL, ELIZABETH HICKS. Hicks history of Granville County, 
North Carolina. Oxford: [Coble Printing Co.], 1965. 219p. $15.00. 

History and Travel 

COULTER, ELLIS MERTON. Old Petersburg and the Broad River Valley 
of Georgia, their rise and decline. Athens, Ga. : University of Georgia 
Press, 1965. 228p. $6.00. 

CURTISS, JOHN SHELTON. The Russian army under Nicholas I, 1825- 
1855. Durham: Duke University Press, 1965. 386p. $10.00. 

DURDEN, ROBERT FRANKLIN. The climax of populism, the election 
of 1896. Lexington, Ky. : University of Kentucky Press, 1965. 190p. 

JOHNSON, F. ROY. The Nat Turner slave insurrection. Murf reesboro : 
Johnson Publishing Co., 1966. 248p. $6.50. 

LAMB, SARAH CHAFFEE. Letters from the colonel's lady: correspond- 
ence of Mrs. William Lamb written from Fort Fisher, N.C., C.S.A., to 
her parents in Providence, R.I., U.S.A., December 1861 to January 1865, 
edited by Cornelius M. Dickinson Thomas. [Winnabow, N.C. : Charles 
Towne Preservation Trust, 1965]. 97p. $10.00. 

McPHERSON, HOLT. Round-the-world report, 1965. High Point: Phoeni- 
cian Press, 1965. 131p. $1.50. 

MARSH, KENNETH FREDERICK. Colonial Bath, North Carolina's old- 
est town. [Asheville: Biltmore Press], 1966. 64p. 

MEDFORD, W. CLARK. Land o' the sky: history-stories-sketches. 
Waynesville: [Author?], 1965. 173p. $5.25. 

MITCHELL, MEMORY FARMER. Legal aspects of conscription and 
exemption in North Carolina, 1861-1865. Chapel Hill: University of 
North Carolina Press, 1965. 103p. $2.50. 

North Carolina Bibliography 211 

PENDER, WILLIAM DORSEY. The general to his lady, the Civil War 

letters of William Dorsey Pender to Fanny Pender, edited by William 

W. Hassler. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965. 

271p. $6.00. 
POWELL, WILLIAM STEVENS. North Carolina. New York: Franklin 

Watts, 1966. 92p. $2.65. 
Paradise preserved. Chapel Hill: University of North Caro- 
lina Press, 1965. 259p. $4.75. 
ROSS, MALCOLM HARRISON. The Cape Fear. New York : Holt, Rine- 

hart and Winston, 1965. 340p. $7.00. 
RUTLEDGE, WILLIAM EDWARD, JR. An illustrated history of Yadkin 

County, 1850-1965. [Yadkinville : William E. Rutledge, Jr., and Max O. 

Welborn, 1965.] 180p. $4.50. » 

SHARPE, WILLIAM P. A new geography of North Carolina. Vol. IV. 

Raleigh: Sharpe Publishing Co., 1965. pp. 1681-2277. $7.50. 
THOMASSON, LILLIAN FRANKLIN. Swain County, early history and 

educational development. Bryson City: [Author?], 1965. 144p. 
WALSER, RICHARD GAITHER, and Julia Montgomery Street. 5 North 

Carolina parade, stories of history and people. Chapel Hill : University 

of North Carolina Press, 1966. 209p. $4.50. 
WANG, YI CHU. Chinese intellectuals and the West, 1872-1949. Chapel 

Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1966. 557p. $10.00. 

Autobiography and Biography 

BAILEY, HUGH C. Hinton Rowan Helper, abolitionist-racist. University, 

Ala. : University of Alabama Press, 1965. 256p. $6.95. 
BAXTER, STEPHEN BARTOW. William III. London : Longmans, 1966. 

460p. £3. 
BLYTHE, LeGETTE. Robert Lee Stowe, pioneer in textiles. Belmont, 

N.C.: [Publisher not reported], 1965. 288p. $4.95. 
DEWSNAP, TERENCE. Thomas Wolfe's Web and the rock and You can't 

go home again. New York: Monarch Press, 1965. 68p. $1.00. 
KROLL, HARRY HARRISON. Riders in the night. Philadelphia: Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1965. 301p. $6.00. 
LINK, ARTHUR S. Wilson, campaigns for progressivism and peace, 1916- 

1917. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1965. 464p. $8.50. 
MASTERSON, WILLIAM H., editor. The John Gray Blount Papers. Vol. 

III. Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1965. 621p. 

NIFONG, DOROTHY R. Brethren with stethoscopes. Winston-Salem: 

Hunter Publishing Co., 1965. 57p. 
SEVERN, WILLIAM. In Lincoln's footsteps, the life of Andrew Johnson, 

by Bill Severn. New York: Washburn, 1966. 215p. $3.59. 
TODD, GLENN HAYWOOD. The immortal Nick Arrington. Chicago: 

Adams Press, 1965. 190p. $3.80. 

5 Winner of the AAUW Award for juvenile literature, 1966. 

212 The North Carolina Historical Review 

TUCKER, GLENN. 6 Zeb Vance, champion of personal freedom. Indiana- 
polis : Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. 564p. $8.50. 

VINING, ELIZABETH GRAY. Flora, a biography. Philadelphia : Lippin- 
cott, 1966. 208p. $4.95. 

ZUBER, RICHARD L. Jonathan Worth, a biography of a Southern Union- 
ist. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1965. 351p. $7.50. 

New Editions and Reprints 

BYRD, WILLIAM. Prose works, narratives of a colonial Virginian, edited 
by Louis B. Wright. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 
1966. 438p. $9.75. 

CLYDE, PAUL HIBBERT. The Far East, a history of the Western im- 
pact and the Eastern response, 1830-1965, by Paul H. Clyde and Burton 
F. Beers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1966. 511p. $8.50. 

CRAVEN, AVERY ODELLE. Edmund Ruffin, Southerner, a study in 
secession. Baton Rouge, La. : Louisiana State University Press, 1966. 
283p. $1.95. 

DOUGLASS, ELISHA P. Rebels and Democrats, the struggle for equal 
political rights and majority rule during the American Revolution. 
Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965. 368p. $2.25. 

DRAUGHON, WALLACE R. North Carolina genealogical reference. Dur- 
ham: Author, 1966. 571p. $15.00. 

DYKEMAN, WILMA. The French Broad. Knoxville : University of Ten- 
nessee Press, 1965. 371p. $5.50. 

EATON, WILLIAM CLEMENT. A history of the Old South. New York : 
Macmillan, 1966. 562p. $8.95. 

GREEN, PHILLIP P., JR. Planning legislation in North Carolina. Chapel 
Hill : Institute of Government, 1965. Various paging. $2.00. 

GRIFFIN, JESSE C. Special services arranged for ministers and others 
who prefer to use them for helpful services. [No place:] Free Will Bap- 
tist Press, 1965. 144p. $1.25. 

HAAS, BEN. Look away, look away. New York : Pocket Books, 1965. 534p. 

HAMMER, CARL. Rhinelanders on the Yadkin, the story of the Pennsyl- 
vania Germans in Rowan and Cabarrus Counties, North Carolina. 
[Salisbury: Rowan Printing Co.?, 1965]. 134p. $5.00. 

JOHNSON, GUION GRIFFIS. Ante-Bellum North Carolina. Chapel Hill: 
University of North Carolina Press, 1965. 952p. $8.50. 

LACY, DAN MABRY. Freedom and communications. Urbana : University 
of Illinois Press, 1965. 108p. 95^. 

LEFLER, HUGH TALMAGE. North Carolina history told by contem- 
poraries. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1965. 580p. 

LINK, ARTHUR S. American epoch, a history of the United States since 
the 1890's. New York: Knopf, 1966. 917p. $9.00. 

6 Winner of the Mayflower Award, 1966. 

North Carolina Bibliography 213 

Wilson, the diplomatist, a look at his major foreign policies. 

Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965. 165p. $1.65. 

LINKER, ROBERT WHITE. Aucassin et Nicolete. Chapel Hill : Univer- 
sity of North Carolina Press, 1965. 60p. $2.50. 

MARSHALL, EDISON. The lost colony. New York: Popular Library, 
1965. 448p. 95^. 

PACE, ELIZABETH. County salaries in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: 
Institute of Government, 1966. 72p. $1.00. 

PHILLIPS, ANN H. Notary public guidebook. Chapel Hill : Institute of 
Government, 1965. 124p. $3.00. 

RAY, WORTH STICKLEY. Colonial Granville County and its people. 
Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1965. pp. 193-312. $7.50. 

SELLERS, CHARLES GRIER, editor. The Southerner as American. New 
York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1966. 216p. $1.45. 

SHEPPARD, MURIEL EARLEY. Cabins in the laurel. Chapel Hill : Uni- 
versity of North Carolina Press, 1965. 456p. $5.95. 

SLAUGHTER, FRANK GILL. Constantine : The miracle of the flaming 
cross. London: Hutchinson, 1966. 415p. 30/. 

SMITH, BETTY. Maggie-Now. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. 346p. 

Al mattino viene la gioia, romanzo. Verona, Italy: Arnoldo 

Mondadori, 1965. 381p. L[ire] 2000. 

.. Tomorrow will be better. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. 

247p. 60f 

TYLER, ANNE. If morning ever comes. New York: Bantam Books, 1965. 
184p. 60f 


North Carolina in Maps. By William P. Cumming. (Raleigh: Department 
of Archives and History, 1966. Brochure. Pp. 36. Fifteen maps : White 
1585 MS, White-De Bry 1590, Mercator-Hondius 1606, Comberford 1657 
MS, Ogilby-Moxon ca. 1672, Moseley 1733, Collet 1770, Mouzon 1775, 
Price-Strother 1808, MacRae-Brazier 1833, Colton 1861, Bachmann 
1861, U.S. Coast Survey 1865, Kerr-Cain 1882, and Post Route 1896. 

This valuable and attractive contribution is certain to appeal to an 
extremely large and varied audience. It consists of a handsome set of 
fifteen large facsimile maps varying in size from 12&" x 15%" to 
35/T x 17/s", printed singly on heavy parchment-like paper, plus a 
well-illustrated and meticulously documented explanatory essay. The 
maps, described as "a series of maps significant to the history of North 
Carolina," were selected by Dr. William P. Cumming, who also pre- 
pared the accompanying explanatory essay. 

Dr. Cumming is regarded internationally as the foremost expert on 
the historical cartography of the Southeast, having authored The 
Southeast in Early Maps as well as numerous articles on the subject. 
He has chosen wisely and well from the vast number of maps which 
are illustrative of phases of North Carolina's rich historical develop- 
ment. The reader is led through the centuries beginning with the six- 
teenth, when the lineaments of the New World were still matters of 
conjecture, to the end of the nineteenth when "every part of [North 
Carolina] had been not only explored but also surveyed and mapped" 
by a most well-informed and eloquent guide. 

Only a person with Dr. Cumming's broad knowledge of North 
Carolina's historical cartography could have brought together such a 
representative and valuable set of maps of the state. His many years 
of wide-ranging research have not only led him to the most crucial of 
the early maps, it has also equipped him to select those extant copies 
which were in the best physical condition for reproduction. As a re- 
sult, the quality of the facsimiles is as near perfect as possible. 

While of more modest dimensions, the paperbound book, North 
Carolina in Maps, which accompanies and explains the maps, is no 

Book Reviews 215 

less valuable. It is here that the reader perceives the author's abundant 
expertise. Dr. Cumming provides a brief but essential introductory 
essay which reviews the highlights of the discovery, exploration, and 
mapping of that part of the New World which became North Carolina. 
Following this introduction is a series of short discussions devoted to 
each of the fifteen maps in the series. These discussions are rich sources 
of information which help to insure a clear understanding and appre- 
ciation of the maps. The book and maps together form a source of 
inestimable value to all who are interested in North Carolina's history 
whether schoolchildren, laymen, scholars, or professional historians. 
In addition, the maps should find wide favor as interesting and at- 
tractive wall decorations admirably suited for framing. 

Louis De Vorsey, Jr. 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Josephus Daniels: The Small-d Democrat. By Joseph L. Morrison. (Chapel 
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966. Illustrations, notes, 
index. Pp. xvi, 316. $7.50.) 

A generation reaching maturity over the past twenty-odd years may 
not recall just how large a figure Josephus Daniels cut on the na- 
tional scene in his heyday. This reviewer as a youngster once proudly 
named his dog for the great secretary who did so much to democratize 
the Navy. Here was a man to reckon with. He was indeed a thorough- 
going small-d democrat, the living embodiment of a small-town pro- 
gressive. What made him remarkable was the way he carried his 
egalitarianism and his moral fervor to the federal arena and applied 
them there with consistency and often with success. 

As a representative progressive, Josephus Daniels can be studied 
with much profit and no little pleasure. Joseph Morrison, professor of 
journalism at the University of North Carolina, has written an easy- 
to-read study that successfully captures his man— as impoverished son 
of a Civil War widow, editor of the Raleigh News and Observer, Dem- 
ocratic party committeeman, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of Navy, 
Franklin D. Roosevelt's longtime friend and ambassador to Mexico. 

To be sure, one may fault the volume. Morrison tends to measure 
all men by Daniels' yardstick. If they disagree— Admirals Fiske and 
Sims, for example— they appear in largely negative terms. Moreover, 
the author is inclined to minimize Daniels' more notable instances of 

216 The North Carolina Historical Review 

shortsightedness, underplaying if not excusing his disgraceful role in 
the Wilmington race riots, his failure to grasp the implications of 
aviation for seapower, and his "our-country-right-or-wrong" isolation- 
ism prior to World War II. But against these flaws must be set major 
assets. If the book never goes far below the surface on any single 
issue, one must recall that the author offers a convenient one-volume 
survey in competition with his own earlier and more specialized book 
as well as Daniels' multivolume memoirs. Despite the compression, 
a significant portrait emerges. The reader sees a man who continues 
to grow throughout his long career. Abandoning his earlier bigotry, 
by 1925 he was couragously resisting the KKK and fighting against an 
antievolution statute for North Carolina. He is seen as a realistic poli- 
tical leader; though a lifelong dry, he abandoned a lost-cause liquor 
referendum in return for wet votes in favor of the nine-month school 
term he had fought so hard to secure. Daniels is portrayed as a fair- 
minded prolabor editor whose employees accepted him as an arbi- 
trator in a wage dispute with his own newspaper. Above all, one sees 
an old-fashioned editor who had a conscious political philosophy and 
acted upon it. As he himself put it, "righteous wrath" is essential to 
editorial influence; if columnists flourish, it is only because "editors 
are lazy." 

I. B. Holley, Jr. 
Duke University 

Colonial South Carolina: A Political History, 1663-1763. By M. Eugene 
Sirmans. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the 
Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1966. Foreword, pre- 
face, bibliographical essay, index. Pp. xvi, 394. $10.00.) 

Marion Eugene Sirmans, Jr., was born in Georgia in 1934. He earned 
one degree at Emory and two at Princeton, showing special interest 
in Colonial South Carolina in graduate school. From 1959 to 1962 he 
was a fellow of the Institute of Early American History and Culture 
and instructor at the College of William and Mary. Returning to 
Emory as assistant professor of history in 1962, he died three years 
later. From his short but productive life as a professional historian 
came five articles and this book, all dealing with the early history of 
South Carolina. 

Colonial South Carolina is a political history in three parts. The first 
forty-two years of the proprietary period are traced in a perfunctory 
manner. Dr. Sirmans was unable to finish this section before he died, 

Book Reviews 217 

and his editors had to make some revisions in these chapters. In the 
hectic three decades from 1712 to 1743 Indian uprisings, economic 
chaos, currency problems, and the overthrow of proprietary govern- 
ment were the chief problems in South Carolina. Sirmans does full 
justice to these issues. The third era covered by this study encom- 
passes the two decades from the arrival of Governor James Glen in 
Charles Town in 1743 to the end of the French and Indian War. Here 
the author deals with the struggle of the Commons House to gain 
control over the Colonial government. Although concerned with the 
shortest period, this is by far the most rewarding part of the book. 
The Bibliographical Essay is a valuable conclusion. 

For over sixty years the works of Edward McCrady and William R. 
Smith have been the standard authorities on the political history of 
Colonial South Carolina. Now their work is superseded by that of 
M. Eugene Sirmans. The maturity and quality of the contribution 
Sirmans has made are especially noteworthy because his career as 
a scholar was compressed within one decade. 

Daniel M. McFarland 
Madison College 

The Nat Turner Slave Insurrection (Together with Thomas R. Gray's The 
Confession, Trial, and Execution of Nat Turner as a Supplement). By 
F. Roy Johnson. (Murfreesboro: Johnson Publishing Company, 1966. 
Illustrations, maps, appendixes, and index. Pp. viii, 248. $6.50.) 

On the night of August 21, 1831, in Southampton County, Virginia, 
Nat Turner, a slave who as a lay preacher exercised a strong influence 
over his race and apparently believed that he was a supernatural 
instrument chosen to lead his people out of bondage, led a band of 
slaves to a number of plantations and in a period of twenty-four hours 
horribly butchered and mangled the bodies of fifty-five white persons 
before the community could act in defense and retaliation. Following 
closely upon slave insurrections in Martinique, Antigua, and other 
Caribbean areas, this revolt caused a profound shock in the slavehold- 
ing states and raised southern fears of a general servile war to their 
highest point. As a result legislation was enacted in nearly every 
southern state greatly increasing the severity of the slave codes; a 
death blow was dealt to the organized emancipation movement in 
the South; and never again would the slaveholding South be free 
from some fear of a wholesale and successful slave uprising, a fact 
potent in the history of the republic for the next thirty years. 

218 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The most important sources of information on this episode are ( 1 ) 
the Southampton County court records; (2) the "Confessions" of Nat 
Turner, dictated on the eve of his execution to Thomas R. Gray, one 
of the lawyers who had participated in the trial of the insurgents; and 
(3) William Sidney Drewry's The Southampton Insurrection, com- 
piled in 1900 from interviews with surviving members of each family 
that suffered at the hands of the insurgents, persons who guarded the 
prisoners, relatives of Nat Turner, and other Negroes. On the basis 
of these and certain other sources Mr. Johnson has placed the revolt 
in its proper setting and has related in sequence the essential facts 
regarding the event and its consequences. It is obvious that this is 
a book written by a man who is well informed on the subject and 
also at home in the locale in which the action took place. 

Unfortunately, these complimentary remarks cannot be extended to 
the authors grammar, syntax, and citation of sources. The volume 
abounds in lack of agreement of verbs and subjects, wrong tenses, and 
misplaced and dangling modifiers. The footnote citations are neither 
in standard form nor, in some instances, accurately stated. The Index 
is fairly satisfactory. 

James W. Patton 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Henry Newman's Salzburger Letterbooks. Transcribed and edited by 
George Fen wick Jones. (Athens : University of Georgia Press [Worms- 
loe Foundation Publications Number Eight], 1966. Map, endpapers, 
illustration, index. Pp. xi, 626. $12.00.) 

Among the first settlers of the Georgia colony, brought over on the 
"Anne" in 1733, was a carpenter named Noble Jones who quickly 
acquired position and rank in the colony— and an estate known as 
Wormsloe. Soon after the founding of the colony, the Society for the 
Propagation of Christian Knowledge, which had been founded by 
the Reverend Thomas Bray, originally to aid Anglican ministers in 
obtaining books for their meager libraries, concerned itself with the 
project of helping German Lutherans to flee from religious persecu- 
tion in Salzburg and to settle in the new colony of Georgia. 

The Secretary of the SPCK was Henry Newman, and his letters to 
and from such individuals as the Reverend Samuel Urlsperger at 
Augsburg, Baron George Philip Frederick Von Reck, and Jean Vat, 

Book Reviews 219 

leaders who brought over the early emigrants, John Martin Bolzius 
and Israel Christian Gronau, ministers at Ebenezer, Georgia, and 
others provide a detailed record of the Salzburgers in flight, their 
problems after leaving Germany, and the difficulties encountered in 
establishing homes in a new world. 

These letters are preserved in the archives of the society in London, 
but since most of them were written in the German language and 
some in French they were useful only to scholars able to translate 
them in London or read photoduplications. Professor George Fenwick 
Jones, head of German Studies at the University of Maryland has now 
transcribed and edited them. They consist of two letter books of 
outgoing correspondence and three of incoming correspondence. 

Students of the subject are fortunate to have the fruit of the labor 
of a descendant of Noble Jones; and fortunate it is, too, for Georgia 
historiography that the Wormsloe Foundation has made it possible 
for the University of Georgia Press to publish this voluminous work. 
Professor Jones, in addition to his inherited interest in the story of 
the merging of English and German cultures in Georgia so long ago, 
has all the qualifications necessary for his tedious but worthwhile 
task. Having already written three major books in his field, he has 
published more than forty articles in Medieval French and German 
literature. He is currently editing the Urlsperger Tracts which is 
planned for release soon as Volume IX in the Wormsloe Foundation 
Publication series. 

Spencer King 
Mercer University 

Georgia Voices: A Documentary History to 1872. By Spencer Bidwell 
King, Jr. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1966. Notes, index. 
Pp. vi, 370. $6.95.) 

Professor Spencer Bidwell King, Jr., of Mercer University, has con- 
centrated his considerable talents on fashioning a documentary his- 
tory of the state of Georgia to the year 1872. The guiding concept 
behind the volume has been to let the Georgia voices speak for them- 
selves. King contends that such voices "could always be easily identi- 
fied" as distinct from those of other states or of the nation. It is up to 
the individual reader to decide if he makes good this claim. The 
present reviewer must demur. Particularly concerning the coming of 
the Civil War and the Reconstruction experience, Georgia Voices is 

220 The Nokth Carolina Historical Review 

largely a catalog of events of the national level upon which Georgians 
simply comment or pass judgment. Though the observations are 
pertinent and occasionally acutely perceptive, there is nothing unique- 
ly Georgian about them. Also, though indeed many Georgia voices 
are included, the most cogent remarks are generally made by out- 
siders, such as Sir Charles Lyell, who visited or passed through 
Georgia and kept records of their impressions. 

Unfortunately, too, the proofreading has been inadequate and the 
indexing is not complete. Even selections included in the text— Wil- 
liam Bartram's passage on page 43 and the excerpt from J. E. D. 
Shipp's biography of William H. Crawford— find no place in the 
Index. And the entire work badly needs a map to which perplexed 
readers not intimate with Georgia's plethora of counties might refer. 

Still Dr. King's volume has positive aspects that tend to offset the 
book's shortcomings. Georgia Voices is well organized and utilizes 
where practicable a topical rather than a strictly chronological ap- 
proach. His chapter on the Negro before 1860 leaves the reader with 
a vivid and intense impression. Particularly, though, in his handling 
of the Civil War experiences of Georgia and Georgians is the grandeur 
and the grimness of the struggle unfolded. For here in this brilliantly 
compressed section of twenty-five pages the tragedy on the land and 
on the people of the state is dramatically and effectively portrayed. 
This chapter is unquestionably the highlight of the book, and the 
volume should have been permitted to end on this note. The conclud- 
ing chapter, touching Reconstruction and its overthrow, is distinctly 

Though one might occasionally quibble with Professor King's em- 
phasis and deplore certain technical deficiencies that tend to detract 
from the whole picture, Georgia Voices is a sound piece of scholar- 
ship and demonstrates King's deep understanding of and sympathy 
for his adopted home state. He is to be commended. 

Phinizy Spalding 
University of Georgia 

The Indian Boundary in the Southern Colonies, 1763-1775. By Louis De 
Vorsey, Jr. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966. 
Maps, bibliography, index. Pp. xii, 267. $7.50.) 

Over much of its great extent the southern Indian Boundary Line, 
which separated the limits of Colonial settlement from the Indian 
hunting grounds, developed from a hazy administrative policy of 

Book Reviews 221 

the Board of Trade at the beginning of the 1760's to a geographical 
reality less than fifteen years later. The location of the southern 
Indian Boundary was of crucial importance and significance to the 
Indians, to the pioneer settlers, and to the British administrators con- 
cerned with the military and political problems of the expanding 
frontier. The French and Indian War had taught the British the im- 
portance of amicable relations with the Indians and of the accompany- 
ing need of moderating the pace or altering the direction of Colonial 

The Proclamation Line of 1763 promulgated by the Board of Trade 
was a temporary expedient; the location of the line in much of its 
length was uncertain, and no adequate map of the back country 
existed. The agreements reached at the Congress of Augusta, Georgia, 
between the attending Colonial governors and the Indian tribal repre- 
sentatives later in the same year attempted to clarify and settle some 
of the chief issues. The truculent and expansionist attitude of the 
white pioneers, unauthorized cessions of lands by Indians to traders, 
and violent reactions of other Indians to these territorial intrusions 
resulted in a series of further congresses and westward modifications 
of the line. These changes were numerous, complicated, and serious 
in their implications and extent. They still have relevance now, two 
hundred years later, as in the still pending multimillion dollar suit of 
the Seminole Indians against the United States, a case specifically 
involving the validity of some of these pre-Revolutionary treaties and 
the boundary lines. 

Dr. De Vorsey's work is a thorough study of the intricate evolution 
of the southern Indian Boundary from its inception as a vaguely 
stated and ill-defined method of alleviating military, political, and 
economic problems to a "geographical reality boldly demarcated 
across the landscape of America's new West" at the outbreak of the 
Revolutionary War. The study is based primarily on exhaustive exami- 
nation of the reports to the Board of Trade and maps in the Public 
Record Office; Dr. De Vorsey has also investigated carefully the maps 
and documents in the British Museum and in this country. 

One of the most valuable results of the dispute concerning the 
Boundary Line was the enormous increase in detailed knowledge and 
accuracy of the maps of the Southeast which were prepared for the 
Board of Trade by John Stuart, Joseph Purcell, and the surveyors 
assisting them. Dr. De Vorsey has uncovered hitherto unnoted maps 
and identified the provenance of others. He has analyzed and inter- 
preted the information on these maps, correlating their eighteenth- 

222 The North Carolina Historical Review 

century delineations of the various boundary lines on a series of 
twenty-nine maps with a modern basis. 

This work is an excellent example of the fruitful field, still largely 
unexplored, of North American historical geography. Dr. De Vorsey 
has clarified the locations of the southern Indian Boundary Line in 
its development; in so doing, he has unraveled the tangled web of a 
significant phase of southern Colonial history. It is to be hoped that 
he will in time produce a companion volume on the Boundary Line 
from the Ohio northward to Canada. 

William P. Cumming 
Davidson College 

A History of the Old South. By Clement Eaton. (New York: Macmillan 
Company [Second Edition] , 1966. Illustrations, bibliography, index. Pp. 
xiv, 562. $8.95.) 

In 1950 Professor Dumas Malone wrote of the first edition of this 
history that it could be "commended with confidence both to students 
and general readers." This judgment of sixteen years ago can be re- 
peated in praise of this extensively revised edition of Clement Eaton's 
original book. This reviewer was greatly impressed with the improved 
literary quality of the revised edition. Almost every page shows the 
careful rereading and rethinking which must have gone into its prep- 
aration. New paragraphs frequently have been inserted and old ones 
have been rearranged. Here an adjective has been added, there one 
has been struck out; here a comma has been added, there a singular 
noun becomes a plural. In all these extensive and minute alterations 
can be seen the subtle changes in the author's views of southern his- 
tory which have taken place through the years. Not only do the re- 
visions reflect the author's more mature scholarly judgments, they also 
reflect changing emphases in historical interpretation and the influence 
of contemporary racial developments. In regard to the latter, experi- 
ence with twentieth century race prejudice has brought Professor 
Eaton to more pessimistic views about the attitudes of antebellum 
southerners toward slavery. 

Though there are twenty-seven chapters in this new edition as con- 
trasted to twenty-three in the earlier one, most of the new material 
has been added at the beginning of the book. Eaton has expanded his 
treatment of the Colonial and Revolutionary periods and a more bal- 
anced, pluralistic interpretation of the factors leading to the Revolution 
is presented. These new chapters give more emphasis to the role of the 

Book Reviews 223 

lower classes in southern society. Later chapters also give more atten- 
tion to the role of women in southern history. 

All in all, this new version of Eaton's History of the Old South pre- 
serves most of the author s penetrating insights, adds new materials 
and new interpretations, and vastly enhances the literary charm of the 
treatment. Fussy historians, like this reviewer, will be happy to see 
that footnotes in this edition are at the bottom of the page instead of 
at the ends of the chapters. 

Herbert J. Doherty, Jr. 

University of Florida 

James K. Polk, Continentalist, 1843-1846. By Charles Sellers. (Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 1966. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. x, 513. 

This second volume of the James K. Polk biography is a study in 
depth of the years 1843-1846, representing the lowest and the highest 
points in Polk's political fortunes. Twice defeated for reelection to the 
governorship of Tennessee, he doubted that he could achieve his am- 
bition to become Democratic nominee for the vice-presidency in 1844. 
That he should receive the presidential nomination was a remarkable 
example of the importance of availability in American politics. At no 
time before or after that moment would he have had a ghost of a 
chance for the party's highest honor. When Martin Van Buren finally 
came out against the annexation of Texas which Henry Clay, the Whig 
nominee, also opposed, the way was open for the Democrats to nomi- 
nate a strong annexationist, and the dark horse was at hand ready for 
the race. 

John C. Calhoun was pushing annexation primarily as a proslavery 
measure, but as the title adjective "continentalist" suggests, Polk had a 
broader vision, for he asserted a strong claim to Oregon and revealed 
to George Bancroft his purpose to acquire California and other West 
Coast territory. Professor Sellers points out that this was more than 
traditional agrarian expansionism; that it involved also a new com- 
mercial expansionism that dreamed of dominating Asiatic trade from 
bases on the Pacific coast— all buttressed by a compelling sense of 
Manifest Destiny that included the right to any land which might be 
needed to realize its dreams. 

If anyone has doubts that this little-known president deserves a 
three-volume biographical treatment, the reading of this second vol- 
ume will remove them, for many of the personalities and issues of the 

224 The North Carolina Historical Review 

day are introduced in a fashion to provide a backdrop to the impend- 
ing crisis over slavery. Nor does the subject of the biography always 
come out very well. Polk was frequently so intent upon his own end 
that his friends and political associates felt themselves misled and at 
times misused— a possibility that apparently did not occur to him. 
Manifest Destiny again justified the means. 

Charlton W. Tebeau 
University of Miami 

Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence of a National Trade Asso- 
ciation. By Louis Galambos. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. 
Notes, bibliography, index. Pp. xii, 329. $7.50.) 

The author presents a scholarly history of the development of tex- 
tile trade associations with especial emphasis on the Cotton Textile 
Institute ( C.T.I. ). In the book one sees businessmen meeting for dis- 
cussions at supper clubs in the late nineteenth century. In time, as 
with any amateurs who find themselves serving useful purposes, full- 
time employees to handle clerical and then administrative work be- 
came necessary. By the beginning of the twentieth century several 
service associations had evolved to fulfill the needs of the textile com- 
panies for joint action. 

This industry faced rather unusual conditions. It had the usual 
problems with suppliers of raw materials, railroads, and customers. 
But within itself it contained a multitude of small companies, each 
competing with every other in an era when "rugged individualism" 
was an accepted reality rather than a catch phrase. Furthermore, the 
textile mills were located in two widely different areas of the country, 
and intersectional rivalry abounded. 

The book shows how the trade associations attempted to develop 
uniform financial and business practices in order to achieve economic 
stability and, in turn, produce regular profits. It was under these con- 
ditions that the Cotton Textile Institute was created and under strong 
leadership was forged into a policy making body. Nevertheless, in an 
atomistic industry small minorities were able to prevent concerted 
action even when trouble developed. With the birth of the National 
Recovery Act (NRA) the executives of the C.T.I, were provided with 
an opportunity to bring the power of law to bear on recalcitrant com- 
panies, and although stability was obtained, profitability was still 
elusive. When the NRA was declared to be unconstitutional, the vain 

Book Reviews 225 

attempt to operate the textile industry on a modernized guild system 
came to an end, and the trade association returned to where it had 
been ten years before. Perhaps this was a good place for the author 
to leave his audience, since the industry also returned to its old 
cyclical economic behavior pattern. 

Future scholars who delve into the area which the author has 
searched so well will be rewarded by his diligence in finding pertinent 
information in original source material. For them he has organized 
and interrelated his data in a manner which tends to allow facts to 
speak for themselves. But this reviewer is of the opinion that the live- 
liness, the use of the striking sentence and the apt phrase, the painting 
rather than the drawing of history, which appears in certain sections 
toward the end of the book, could have been used advantageously 

The Index is adequate and the Bibliography is voluminous, al- 
though one may wonder why no mention is made in it of Competition 
in the Rayon Industry, by Jesse W. Markham, which was published by 
the Harvard University Press in 1952. In Tables 10 and 14 where 
figures on spindle hours have been rounded off, billions were in- 
advertently reduced to millions. 

Robert W. Work 
North Carolina State University 


An Outwork at Fort Raleigh: Further Archeological Excavations at 
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina, is Jean Carl 
Harringtons fascinating report of his most recent (1965) study of 
an archaelogical feature accidentally discovered on Roanoke Island 
by a utility workman in 1959. The study was begun as a part of the 
archaeological program of the National Park Service and was com- 
pleted through a grant from the Eastern National Park and Monu- 
ment Association, the publisher of this report. Although the new site 
could not be identified with certainty, the archaeologist concluded 
that it had a military function and for purposes of this report 
designated it as an outwork. In his preface Mr. Harrington says that 
the study revealed "possibly the most important new information 
that has come to light on the Raleigh colonizing venture in recent 
years." As a matter of fact, the investigation, which was carried out 
with the close cooperation of Dr. Sam H. Patterson of the United 

226 The North Carolina Historical Review 

States Geological Survey, raises many interesting new questions about 
what might have happened on Roanoke Island when the first settlers 
arrived almost four centuries ago. This 66-page volume is paperbound 
and includes photographs, sketches, maps, and a brief bibliography. 
There are two appendixes: a report by Dr. Patterson on the labora- 
tory investigation of the brick, tile, and "mortar" samples, and a 
report by Ivor Noel Hume of Colonial Williamsburg on an unusual 
ceramic vessel, all artifacts uncovered at the excavations. Copies of 
the book may be purchased from Eastern National Park & Monu- 
ment Association, 420 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
19106, at $1.75, plus 25 cents for postage and handling. For an article 
on a special aspect of this study, see J. C. Harrington, "The Manu- 
facture and Use of Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement on Roanoke 
Island," in the Winter, 1967, North Carolina Historical Review. 

The Genealogical Publishing Company has made available two 
hard-cover reprints which will be of interest to genealogists, students, 
and historians. The first is Marriage and Death Notices from [the] 
Raleigh Register and North Carolina State Gazette, 1799-1825, com- 
piled by Carrie L. Broughton, a former state librarian, and first 
published as a part of the Report of the State Library of North 
Carolina for the Riennium 1942-1944. Of the 5,000 entries in the 178- 
page volume, approximately two-thirds are marriage notices and 
one-third death notices. The notices relate to the entire state and 
not to one area. Although the print is small, it is clear and legible. 
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the second title, Mecklen- 
burg Signers and Their Neighbors, by Worth S. Ray. In the Preface 
to the original edition published in 1946, of which the present edition 
is a facsimile reprint, the editor advised that the type had been kept 
small to avoid manufacture of an unwieldly volume. Since the work 
is more likely to be used for reference than for cover-to-cover read- 
ing, the advantages of its availability outweigh the disadvantages of 
poor legibility. Approximately one half of the book is composed of 
miscellaneous data taken from tombstones, wills, deeds, marriage 
and death notices, and the like; the remainder is made up of bio- 
graphical and genealogical sketches. Mecklenburg Signers and Their 
Neighbors is Part III of a longer work by Mr. Ray entitled The Lost 
Tribes of North Carolina, which accounts for the pagination from 
313 to 558. This volume includes name, subject, and place indexes, 
several maps, and a list of sources and authorities. Both the Broughton 
and Ray compilations may be purchased at $7.50 each from the 
publisher at 521-23 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202. 

Book Reviews 227 

The Brunswick County Historical Society has published Bicen- 
tennial: Brunswick County, North Carolina, a souvenir booklet com- 
memorating the bicentennial celebration held at Brunswick Town 
State Historic Site on November 15, 1964. Included in the 19-page 
paperbound booklet are brief histories of the county and the society, 
a list of officers and members of the society, the addresses made at 
the event by Stanley South and Judge Rudolph I. Mintz, several maps, 
including "A New Map of Historic Brunswick County," drawn by 
R. V. Asbury, Jr., in 1961, and an excerpt from the first federal 
census of 1790. For information as to how copies of the booklet may 
be obtained, write to Miss Helen F. Taylor, Secretary, Brunswick 
County Historical Society, Box 22, Winnabow, N. C. 

Mrs. Dora Adele Padgett, of 1601 Argonne Place, N. W., Washing- 
ton, D.C., 20009, has recently published a genealogical study entitled 
The Styron (Styring) Family in America, copies of which are avail- 
able from the author for $7.50. Edited with skill and apparent 
thoroughness, illustrated with a variety of halftone engravings of 
pertinent maps, documents, and photographs of churches, and printed 
by letterpress on good quality paper, this volume should serve as an 
excellent example for others who undertake to publish family history. 
The book is attractively bound in a heavy paper cover, and a large 
genealogical chart of the family is included with each copy. 

Dr. C. Hugh Holman, Kenan Professor of English at the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is the general editor of the 
Odyssey Surveys of American Writing, which will be composed of 
four anthologies encompassing selected writings from the Colonial 
period to the 1960's. The first volume, Colonial and Federalist Ameri- 
can Writing, edited by Drs. George D. Horner and Robert A. Bain 
of the English faculty at Chapel Hill, is now available. The editors 
have included representative samples from every type of writing 
produced during the two centuries from 1607 to 1830, beginning with 
the writings of John Smith and concluding with those of James 
Fenimore Cooper. This anthology should prove invaluable to teachers 
and students of English and history for text and collateral reading, 
particularly because library facilities are frequently inadequate for 
this historical era. For the study of southern literature and history, 
attention is called to the inclusion of selections from the works of 
John Smith, John Lawson, Robert Beverley, Thomas Godfrey, William 

228 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Byrd II, William Bartram, Thomas Jefferson, John Woolman, William 
Dawson, and John Hammond, as well as excerpts from the Burwell 
Papers, the South Carolina Gazette, and the Virginia Gazette. One 
might quibble about the broken type, feathering print, and evidences 
of printing carelessness; however, gratitude to the publisher and 
editors for making such a fine collection available at the modest 
prices of $4.50 and $3.50 for the hard-cover and paperbound editions, 
respectively, mitigates criticism of the technical deficiencies. The 
945-page volume includes an introduction for each of the three major 
divisions, a brief biographical sketch and bibliography which pre- 
cedes each selection, and an index to authors, titles, and first lines 
of poems. Copies may be purchased from the Odyssey Press, Inc., 55 
Fifth Avenue, New York City. 

The Naval History Division of the Department of the Navy has 
completed publication of its highly commendable six-volume series 
entitled Civil War Chronology, 1861-1865. Parts I through V of the 
series present in summary form a day-by-day account of the important 
naval happenings for the year 1861 through 1865, respectively. Part 
VI, which has recently been issued, is subtitled Special Studies and 
Cumulative Index. The special studies are composed of chapters 
on such miscellany as "Naval Sheet Music of the Civil War," Ship- 
board Life During the Civil War," "Civil War Blockade Runners," 
"Confederate Forces Afloat," "The Navy in the Defense of Washing- 
ton," and others. In addition to the 66-page cumulative index, there 
is a "Table of Illustrations," which lists sources for illustrative material 
used in the series. Each of the six parts is illustrated profusely with 
copies of photographs, letters, orders, maps, engravings, etc. The 
director of naval history, Rear Admiral E. M. Eller, U.S. Navy (Ret.), 
has written introductions, prefaces, or summaries for each volume. 
An 8" x 10M" format is used, and each part is paperbound. The entire 
set may be purchased for a total of $5.85, or the volumes may be 
purchased individually as follows: Part 1—1861, 41 pages, 25 cents; 
Part 11-1862, 117 pages, 60 cents; Part III-1863, 169 pages, $1.00; 
Part IV-1864, 151 pages, 75 cents; Part V-1865, 149 pages, 75 cents; 
and Part VI— Special Studies and Cumulative Index, 477 pages, $2.50. 
Prepaid orders should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402. 

Book Reviews 229 

National Archives Publication No. 67-1, Federal Population Cen- 
suses, 1790-1890: A Price List of Microfilm Copies of the Schedules, 
is a 154-page paperbound volume which, as the title indicates, pro- 
vides a listing of postive microfilm copies currently available for 
the original federal population census schedules for the eleven-year 
period, 1790-1890. The listing is arranged chronologically, then alpha- 
betically by state and county or counties. The increase in population 
enumerated and the sophistication of the questionnaires is reflected 
in the escalating cost of the prints: microfilm for the entire states 
of North Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania, for the Census of 
1790 is available on one roll for $8.00, while a print for North Caro- 
lina alone for the Census of 1880 is $294. Beginning with the Census 
of 1800 prints are available in county segments, at prices ranging 
from $2.00 to $11.00. Most of the 1890 census records were destroyed 
by fire in 1921, and for this state only portions of Gaston and Cleveland 
counties are available. Somewhat compensating for that loss is the 
microfilm of "Special Schedules of the Eleventh Census (1890) 
Enumerating Union Veterans and Widows of Union Veterans of the 
Civil War." A microfilm copy of this schedule for North Carolina is 
$4.00. Microfilm must be ordered by number on special forms pro- 
vided with the Price List. Copies of the book may be acquired free of 
charge from the General Services Administration, National Archives 
and Records Service, Washington, D.C., 20408. 

The North Carolina Historical Review is printed on Permalif e, a text 
paper developed through the combined efforts of William J. Barrow 
of the Virginia State Library, the Council on Library Resources, Inc., 
and the Standard Paper Manufacturing Company. Tests indicate that 
the paper theoretically has a useful life of at least 300 years. 


The Editorial Board of the North Carolina Historical Review is 
interested in articles and documents pertaining to the history of North 
Carolina and adjacent states. Articles on the history of other sections 
may be submitted, and, if there are ties with North Carolinians or 
events significant in the history of this state, the Editorial Board will 
give them careful consideration. Articles on any aspect of North Caro- 
lina history are suitable subject matter for the Review, but materials 
that are primarily genealogical are not accepted. 

In considering articles, the Editorial Board gives careful attention 
to the sources used, the form followed in the footnotes, and style in 
which the article is written, and the originality of the material and its 
interpretation. Clarity of thought and general interest of the article 
are of importance, though these two considerations would not, of 
course, outweigh inadequate use of sources, incomplete coverage of 
the subject, and inaccurate citations. 

Persons desiring to submit articles for the North Carolina Historical 
Review should request a copy of The Editors Handbook, which may 
be obtained free of charge from the Division of Publications of the De- 
partment of Archives and History. The Handbook contains informa- 
tion on footnote citations and other pertinent facts needed by writers 
for the Review. Each author should follow the suggestions made in 
The Editors Handbook and should use back issues of the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review as a further guide to the accepted style and 

All copy should be double-spaced; footnotes should be typed on 
separate sheets at the end of the article. The author should submit an 
original and a carbon copy of the article; he should retain a second 
carbon for his own reference. Articles accepted by the Editorial Board 
become the property of the North Carolina Historical Review and 
may not have been or be published elsewhere. The author should in- 
clude his professional title in the covering letter accompanying his 

Following acceptance of an article, publication will be scheduled in 
accordance with the established policy of the Editorial Board. Since 
usually a large backlog of material is on hand, there will ordinarily be 
a fairly long period between acceptance and publication. 

The editors are also interested in receiving for review books relating 
to the history of North Carolina and the surrounding area. 

Articles and books for review should be sent to the Division of 
Publications, State Department of Archives and History, Box 1881, 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

r 1 


North Carotin* Slat, uormy 

N. C. 




The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Miss Marie D. Moore, Editorial Associate 


John Fries Blair 
Miss Sarah M. Lemmon 

William S. Powell 
David Stick 

Henry S. Stroupe 


Josh L. Horne, Chairman 
Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway 
T. Harry Gatton 
Fletcher M. Green 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

Ralph P. Hanes 

Hugh T. Lefler 

Edward W. Phifer 

This review was established in January, 192U, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $b..00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may 
be obtained from Kraus Reprint Corporation, 16 East 46th Street, New York, New 
York, 10017, or on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without 
special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department 
of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. Mailing address is Box 1881, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
27602. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina, 27602. 

COVER — A Sloane copy after a John White watercolor of a bird not posi- 
tively identifiable, but perhaps meant to be a female red-eyed towhee. The 
maize is probably an example of the "Eastern 8- to 10-rowed flint and flour 
corn/' cultivated by the Indians in Colonial America. For an article on 
"Indian Agriculture in the Southern Colonies," see pages 283 to 297. The 
cover illustration is taken from The American Drawings of John White, 
1577-1590, edited by Paul Hulton and David Beers Quinn (Chapel Hill: 
University of North Carolina Press, 1964). 

H6e %vttfi ganditta, 
*i¥i4to>Ucal Review 

Volume XLIV Published in July, 1967 Number 3 



W. Harrison Daniel 


David L. Smiley 

CRISIS, 1929-1932 270 

Joseph L. Morrison 


G. Melvin Herndon 



JONES, For History's Sake: The Preservation and Publication of 

North Carolina History, 1663-1903, by Hugh T. Lefler 298 

Roberts and Griffin, Old Salem in Pictures, 

by Mary Claire Engstrom 299 

Blythe, 38th Evac: The Story of the Men and Women Who Served 
in World War II with the 38th Evacuation Hospital in North 
Africa and Italy, by Sarah McCulloh Lemmon 300 

Edmunds, Tar Heels Track the Century, by Blackwell P. Robinson . . . 301 

Rouse, North Carolina Picadillo, by Charles R. Holloman 302 

Manarin, Richmond at War: The Minutes of the City Council, 

1861-1865, by Haskell Monroe 303 

Thompson, Robert Toombs of Georgia, by Horace H. Cunningham . . . 305 

Rosenberger, Records of the Columbia Historical Society of 

Washington, D.C., by Mattie Russell 306 

Brandfon, Cotton Kingdom of the New South: A History of the 
Yazoo Mississippi Delta from Reconstruction to the Twentieth 
Century, by John Edmond Gonzales 307 

Clark, The South Since Appomattox: A Century of Regional 

Change, by Vincent P. De Santis 309 

Hindle, Technology in Early America: Needs and Opportunities 

for Study, by James F. Doster 310 

Clark, Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume 2, 

by A. M. Patterson 311 

Herrick, The American Naval Revolution, by Thornton W. Mitchell . . 312 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. 
Johnson, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and 
Statements of the President, 1965, by Robert Moats Miller 313 

Other Recent Publications 314 


By W. Harrison Daniel* 

There were approximately 104,000 Presbyterians in the South the 
year Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States, 1 
and prior to the election denominational spokesmen had been vitally 
concerned about the mounting political passions and their possible 
results. Early in September the Central Presbyterian, a weekly news- 
paper published in Richmond, Virginia, had cautioned southerners to 
be wary of secession sentiment and warned that the inevitable result 
of secession and disunion would be a "horrible civil war/' 2 A month 
later the Fayetteville Presbytery adopted a resolution which recom- 
mended a day of fasting and prayer to God "to continue us [a] happy, 
united, and prosperous people"; this same statement was adopted by 
the North Carolina Synod when it met near the end of October. 3 The 
Synod of Virginia, which met shortly before the election, designated 
the first Sunday in November as a day of fasting and prayer and sug- 
gested that Presbyterian clergymen preach on the duty of Christians 
as peacemakers. 4 On this occasion Robert Lewis Dabney, moderator 
of the Synod of Virginia^preached a sermon in which he denounced 

* Dr. Daniel is associate professor of history at the University of Richmond, Rich- 
mond, Virginia. 

1 Actually there were five different bodies of Presbyterians in the South: The 
regular or old school Presbyterians, who were affiliated with the General Assembly 
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and numbered ap- 
proximately 104,000 members; the United Synod of new school Presbyterians, which 
claimed a membership of approximately 12,000; the Associate Reformed Presbyterian 
Synod of the South, with a membership approaching 10,000; the Independent Presby- 
terian Church, made up of 1,000 members; and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 
which claimed a membership of approximately 47,000. See Joseph M. Wilson, The 
Presbyterian Historical Almanac and Annual Remembrancer of the Church for 1860 
(Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1860), 192; Joseph M. Wilson, The Presbyterian 
Historical Almanac and Annual Remembrancer of the Church for 1861 (Philadelphia: 
Joseph M. Wilson, 1862), 120-121, 170-172, 193, 327. Attention in this article is focused 
upon the old school Presbyterians. 

2 Central Presbyterian (Richmond, Virginia), September 8, 1860, hereinafter cited 
as Central Presbyterian. 

3 North Carolina Presbyterian (Fayetteville), October 13, November 3, 1860, here- 
inafter cited as North Carolina Presbyterian. 

* Thomas C Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney (Richmond: 
Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1903), 212, hereinafter cited as Johnson, 

232 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the passionate men who were "stirring" the country and he advised 
his listeners that they should pray for peace, vote for virtuous men, 
and be calm in language and manner. 5 

After the election of Lincoln— which one Presbyterian newspaper 
described as an outrage to southern sentiment and feeling 6 — but prior 
to the secession of South Carolina, some Presbyterian ministers and 
denominational agencies publicly advocated disunion. The Southern 
Presbyterian, a. weekly newspaper published in Columbia, South Caro- 
lina, was the first religious newspaper in the South to espouse seces- 
sion. 7 It was claimed that secession was the only means of preserving 
southern rights and liberties. 8 On November 21 James Henly Thorn- 
well, the most influential person in southern Presbyterianism and pro- 
fessor of theology at the denomination's seminary at Columbia, de- 
livered a fast day sermon in that city. He declared that Union, a name 
"once dear to our hearts, has become intolerable and is now synony- 
mous with oppression, treachery, falsehood, and violence/' He de- 
nounced Congress as being corrupt and described it as a "den of 
robbers and bullies." He was convinced that it was no longer possible 
to live with self-respect in a Union governed by the Republican party. 
He believed that the government of the nation needed a "reconstruc- 
tion" and that nothing would bring this about except secession. He 
was in favor of South Carolina's showing the way in this movement 
by seceding at once. 9 W. C. Dana, pastor of the Central Presbyterian 
Church in Charleston, also delivered a fast day sermon on November 
21. He claimed that the election of Lincoln had brought to power "a 
foreign and hostile government," because the Republican party was 
foreign to southern soil and was hostile to the southern way of life. He 
asserted that people in the South owed no fealty to a government 
dominated by this party and declared that only southerners should 
govern the South. He was in favor of immediate secession. 10 The Synod 
of South Carolina met during the last week in November and avowed 
that a hostile extremism— represented by the election of Lincoln— domi- 
nated the North and the federal government and was determined to 
destroy southern social institutions. This ecclesiastical gathering called 

5 James H. Thornwell and Others, Fast Day Sermons: On The State of the Country 
(New York: Rudd and Carleton, 1861), 83-96, hereinafter cited as Thornwell, 
Fast Day Sermons. 

North Carolina Presbyterian, November 24, 1860. 

7 This claim was made in the Southern Presbyterian ( Columbia, South Carolina) , 
November 10, 1864, hereinafter cited as Southern Presbyterian. 

8 Southern Presbyterian, November 17, 1860. 

9 Thornwell, Fast Day Sermons, 28, 55 ; Johnson, Dabney, 224. 

10 W. C. Dana, A Sermon Delivered in the Central Presbyterian Church, Charleston, 
South Carolina, November 21, 1860, Being the Day Appointed by State Authority for 
Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer (Charleston: Evans and Cogswell, 1860), 6-8. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 233 

upon the people of South Carolina to imitate their Revolutionary 
forefathers, to stand up for their rights, and to declare their independ- 
ence from the North. 11 On November 29 Benjamin Morgan Palmer, 
pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, preached a 
Thanksgiving Day sermon. He echoed the sentiments of his former 
mentor, Thornwell, and explained that the Union which their fore- 
fathers had formed no longer existed, since mutual respect and confi- 
dence had been destroyed. He asserted that the Union had become a 
yoke upon the South and should be thrown off as their ancestors had 
thrown off the yoke of George III. He urged that secession begin 
immediately. 12 On December 9 the Reverend R. K. Porter of Waynes- 
boro, Georgia, expressed the belief that peace was possible only if the 
Union was dissolved and he suggested a "speedy dissolution/' 13 The 
discussion of political questions in the pulpit and by ecclesiastical 
gatherings was a departure for southern clergymen. The practice, 
however, was defended on the grounds that the rights, liberties, and 
religion of the South were imperiled. 14 

Although the Presbyterian press in North Carolina, Virginia, and 
Louisiana never questioned the right of a state to secede, the editors 
were more moderate in their views than were Palmer and Porter and 
their South Carolina colleagues. The North Carolina Presbyterian 
claimed that three fourths of the people in that state wished to pre- 
serve the Union but it also noted that these same people believed that 
a state possessed the right to leave the Union if it so desired. 15 The 
Central Presbyterian echoed this sentiment and declared that any 
attempt by the federal government to coerce a state to remain in the 
Union would result in war. 16 In New Orleans the True Witness and 
Sentinel sought to present a position of neutrality and did not espouse 
southern nationalism until after the secession of Louisiana. 17 

Robert L. Dabney was critical of the secession sentiments of his 
Presbyterian colleagues in the deep South and of the precipitate politi- 

11 Minutes of the Synod of South Carolina, held at Charleston, November 28-Decem- 
ber 1, 1860, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, 

13 Thornwell, Fast Day Sermons, 73-77. 

13 R. K. Porter, Christian Duty in the Present Crisis: The Substance of A Sermon 
Delivered in the Presbyterian Church, in Waynesboro, Georgia, December 9, 1860 
(Savannah: Steam Press of John M. Cooper and Company, 1860), 20. 

14 Southern Presbyterian, December 15, 1860; Christian Observer (Richmond, Vir- 
ginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), January 10, 1861, hereinafter cited as 
Christian Observer. 

15 North Carolina Presbyterian, November 24, 1860. 

16 Central Presbyterian, December 1, 1860. 

"Haskell Monroe, "Southern Presbyterians and the Secession Crisis," Civil War 
History, VI (December, 1960), 355, hereinafter cited as Monroe, "Southern Presby- 

234 The North Carolina Historical Review 

cal action of South Carolina. Early in December he wrote, "I am sure 
that trouble is unnecessary. If the Southern states would be quiet . . . 
but firm, claiming their rights in the Union, all would blow over." 
His reaction to the secession of South Carolina was expressed in a 
letter to his mother, dated December 28, 1860. "The impudent little 
vixen [South Carolina] ," he wrote, "has gone beyond all patience. 
She is as great a pest as the abolitionists. And if I had my way, they 
might whip her to their heart's content, so they would only do it by 
sea and not pester us." 18 His views on secession were expressed more 
fully in a pamphlet, A Pacific Appeal to Christians, which was pub- 
lished in January, 1861, and also printed in the Central Presbyterian. 
He did not consider the election of Lincoln a cause for secession and 
he regarded the conduct of South Carolina as unjustifiable and as 
weakening the position of the South. He believed that if secession 
occurred, it should be the united action of the entire South and not 
state by state. He urged calmness and Christian patience and implored 
the people to be temperate in their language. 19 In March, however, 
after various compromise schemes to guarantee southern rights had 
failed, Dabney called upon Virginians to leave the Union as soon as 
possible. 20 Nearly a month before Fort Sumter a Baptist editor re- 
marked "there is a remarkable unanimity among the Presbyterian 
ministers of the South in favor of a separation from the North/' 21 

The Fort Sumter incident and Lincoln's proclamation for troops 
were denounced by southern Presbyterians as an invasion of their 
homeland and a violation of the principle of self-government and of 
the Constitution. 22 After the secession of Virginia, Dabney wrote an- 
other pamphlet; he defended secession and castigated the fanatics in 
the North, claiming that they controlled the federal government and 
wished to enslave the people of the South. 23 During the summer and 
fall of 1861 all (forty-seven) of the southern presbyteries expressed 
their sympathy for the Confederate cause and in December, 1861, the 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States declared its allegiance to the Confederate government. The 

18 Robert L. Dabney to his sister, December 7, 1860 ; Robert L. Dabney to his mother, 
December 28, 1860, Robert L. Dabney Papers, Union Theological Seminary Library, 
Richmond, Virginia. 

19 Peyton H. Hoge, Moses Drury Hoge: Life and Letters (Richmond: Presbyterian 
Committee of Publications, 1899), 140-142, hereinafter cited as Hoge, Moses Drury 
Hoge; Johnson, Dabney, 215-217. 

^Monroe, "Southern Presbyterians," 358. 

21 Tennessee Baptist (Nashville, Tennessee), March 23, 1861. 

22 F. D. Jones and W. H. Mills (eds.), History of the Presbyterian Church in South 
Carolina Since 1850 (Columbia: R. L. Bryan Company, 1926), 77, hereinafter cited 
as Jones and Mills, Presbyterian Church in South Carolina; Hoge, Moses Drury Hoge, 

23 Johnson, Dabney, 223. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 235 

statement of the general assembly, entitled "An Address to All of the 
Churches of Jesus Christ Throughout the Earth," was prepared by a 
committee under the chairmanship of James H. Thornwell. It traced 
the growing tensions between North and South for the past thirty 
years and presented an extended argument justifying slavery and the 
position of the South. It explained that southerners needed no apology 
in withdrawing their country from the government of the United 
States. 24 

Blame for the disruption of the Union was placed on the North. 
Northern states were accused of violating the Constitution by the en- 
actment of liberty laws, and the people in the North were depicted as 
wishing to deny southerners equal opportunity in the territories. 25 It 
was maintained that secession was the only course available for a 
peace-loving people to insure their rights of property, person, home, 
and church from the "fanatics" who were in control of the government 
at Washington. 26 Northern abolitionists were accused of interjecting a 
"moral element" into the sectional struggle which excited public senti- 
ment and made it more aggressive and rendered compromise impos- 
sible. 27 

The North was accused of initiating a cruel and relentless war upon 
the South. 28 Presbyterian spokesmen assured the people of the South 
that in the "eyes of God and man" their cause was just, since they 
were attempting to maintain their institutions against a despotic 
power, and they were urged to pray for the welfare of the Confed- 

24 Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States of America, With an Appendix, 1861 (Augusta, Georgia: Steam Power Press 
Chronicle and Sentinel, 1861), 9, 52-60, hereinafter cited as Minutes of the General 
Assembly, 1861; Haskell M. Monroe, Jr., "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States of America" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rice University, 1961), 129, 
hereinafter cited as Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States." 

25 Thornwell, Fast Day Sermons, 36; North Carolina Presbyterian, November 24, 
1860; Central Presbyterian, December 1, 1860. 

28 Minutes of the Synod of South Carolina, Charleston, November 6, 1861, Historical 
Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; Minutes of the General 
Assembly, 1861, 56; unsigned article, "The Presbyterian Church in Georgia on Seces- 
sion and Slavery," Georgia Historical Quarterly, I (September, 1917), 263; Joseph 
C Stiles, The National Controversy ; or The Voice of the Fathers Upon the State of 
the Country (New York: Rudd and Carleton, 1861), 1, 7, 15, 47. 

27 Central Presbyterian, December 29, 1860. 

28 Southern Presbyterian, August 24, 1861; T. S. Winn, The Great Victory at 
Manassas Junction. God The Arbiter of Battles, A Thanksgiving Sermon, Preached in 
the Presbyterian Church at Concord, in Greene County, Alabama, July 28, 1861 
(Tuskaloosa, Alabama: J. F. Warren, 1861), 6, hereinafter cited as Winn, The Great 
Victory; Benjamin M. Palmer, The Rainbow Round the Throne; or Judgement Tem- 
pered With Mercy, A Discourse Before the Legislature of Georgia, Delivered on the 
Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, Appointed by the President of the Con- 
federate States of America, March 27, 1863 ( Milledgeville, Georgia: Boughton, Nisbet 
and Barnes, 1863), 34, 37, hereinafter cited as Palmer, Rainbow Round the Throne. 

236 The North Carolina Historical Review 

erate government and armies. 29 Some churchmen interpreted the war 
as being the chastisement of God. It was His method of disciplining 
the people so that they would be more appreciative of independence. 30 
Benjamin Palmer, in a sermon before the Georgia legislature, said 
that God was using the war as a disciplinary action on the southern 
people, preparing them for a great future. 31 There were others who 
saw the war as God's punishment for sins. Amasa Converse, a promi- 
nent Presbyterian minister and editor, said that the South had been 
guilty of idleness and intemperance, had been a proud and ungrateful 
people, and that these sins were partially responsible for the war. 32 
The Reverend T. V. Moore of Richmond declared that the war was 
God's way of "breaking up mammon worship" and of teaching men 
the Christian virtues of humility and patience. 33 

Throughout the war the hand of God was read into every military 
victory and defeat. Thomas Smyth declared that the Confederate 
triumph at the first battle of Manassas was due to a "wonder-work- 
ing Providence," and T. S. Winn said that God's assistance to the 
Confederacy was similar to His aiding the Israelites against the Philis- 
tines. 34 It was claimed that McClellan's failure to take Richmond in 
the spring of 1862 was because of the intervention of deity. 35 Success 
in battle was considered a gift of God, the evidence of His pleasure 
toward the South; and ecclesiastical gatherings thanked Him for their 
blessings and beseeched His salvation for the final victory. 36 

Military defeats were often portrayed as necessary preparation for 
peace and prosperity. Without reverses, the people were told, they 

29 North Carolina Presbyterian, April 27, 1861; Central Presbyterian, March 26, 
1863; James A. Millard, Jr., A Digest of the Acts and Proceedings of the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 1861-1944 (Richmond: 
Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1945), 159, hereinafter cited as Millard, 
Digest; Minutes of the Presbytery of Fayetteville, at Their Ninety -seventh Session, 
Held at Mt. Horeb Church, Bladen County, North Carolina, October 10-11, 1861 
(Fayetteville: Printed at the Presbyterian Office, 1861), 13. 

30 Central Presbyterian, December 7, 1861. 

31 Christian Index (Macon, Georgia), April 6, 1861, hereinafter cited as Christian 

32 Christian Observer, April 17, 1862. 

33 T. V. Moore, God Our Refuge and Strength in This War; A Discourse Before 
the Congregations of the First and Second Presbyterian Churches, on the Day of 
Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer Appointed by President Davis, Friday, November 
15, 1861 (Richmond: n.p., 1861), 7. 

34 Thomas Smyth, "The Victory of Manassas Plains," Southern Presbyterian Review, 
XIV (January, 1862), 599; Winn, The Great Victory, 6. 

35 North Carolina Presbyterian, July 12, 1862. 

36 This was a characteristic practice of ecclesiastical meetings during the war. 
For examples see Millard, Digest, 160; Minutes of the Forty-ninth Session of the 
Synod of North Carolina, Held in the Church at Goldsboro, October 29, 1862 (Fayette- 
ville: Printed at the Presbyterian Office, 1863), 17; Minutes of the One Hundred 
and Third Session of the Presbytery of Fayetteville, At Union Church, Duplm County, 
North Carolina, October 6-8, 1864 (Fayetteville: Printed at the Presbyterian Office, 
1865), 5. ' 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 237 

would have no true conception of their condition. The would become 
"puffed up like a bubble, would burst and scatter into nothingness"; 
reverses would prevent this from happening because through them God 
tested and developed the character of a people. 37 Attention was called 
to the biblical teaching, "God always chastises those whom He loves 
the most." 38 When the Federal forces penetrated into middle- Ten- 
nessee and occupied Nashville early in 1862, the Southern Presby- 
terian explained that the losses were acts of divine discipline against 
sloth, selfishness, love of ease, and the worship of material things. 39 
The fall of New Orleans was called a "cup of bitterness" which it was 
God's will for the South to take. 40 The disaster at Gettysburg was 
attributed not to the failure of certain of Lee's corps commanders 
to move at a given time but to the sin of pride. One Presbyterian 
editor commented that 

. . . probably no offense to God has been more conspicuous in our history 
than our pride . . .our self-confidence. ... As we marched into Pennsyl- 
vania our people were vainly puffed up with pride. . . . How shamefully 
we forgot God. We believe it was in mercy, He frowned upon this attempt 
to do without Him. 41 

As the war was prolonged and Confederate losses increased, Presby- 
terian spokesmen implored southerners not to be discouraged and 
assured them that if they trusted in God and repented of their sins 
they would receive the blessing of independence. 42 

Throughout the war Christian faith and patriotism were practically 
synonymous in the thinking of most Presbyterians. Denominational 
newspapers and church leaders never permitted Presbyterians to 
forget their patriotic duty. The sermons of some Presbyterian clergy- 
men to recruits departing for the theater of war depicted the will of 
God as synonymous with the cause of the South. The Reverend John 
Jones of Rome, Georgia, informed the Rome Light Guards that they 
were embarking upon a holy war and that they should never waver 
in their loyalty to the South. 43 Benjamin Palmer told members of the 

37 Southern Presbyterian, January 12, 1865; Soldier's Visitor (Richmond, Virginia), 
January, 1865, hereinafter cited as Soldier's Visitor. 

38 Southern Presbyterian, March 1, 1862. 

39 Southern Presbyterian, February 22, 1862; R. H. Lafferty, Fast Day Sermon 
Preached in the Church of Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Feb- 
ruary 28, 1862 (Fayetteville: Printed at the Presbyterian Office, 1862), 5-14. 

40 Central Presbyterian, May 1, 1863. 

41 Central Presbyterian, August 13, 1863. 

42 J. C. Stiles, National Rectitude the Only True Basis of National Prosperity 
(Petersburg, Virginia: Evangelical Tract Society, 1863), 6, 28; J. C. Stiles, Captain 
Thomas E. King; or A Word to the Army and the Country (Atlanta: J. J. Toon and 
Company, 1864), 52; Southern Presbyterian, December 29, 1864. 

43 J. Jones, The Southern Soldier's Duty. A Discourse Delivered to the Rome Light 
Guards and Miller Rifles, in the Presbyterian Church of Rome, Georgia, on Sabbath 
Morning, May 26, 1861 (Rome: Steam Power Press of D. H. Mason, 1861), 5-11. 

238 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Washington Artillery before leaving New Orleans that they were 
entering a war of southern civilization versus northern barbarism, and 
he assured them that they had the blessings of deity. 44 Another Louisi- 
ana contingent of troops heard a sermon by Palmer on the text, Psalms 
144:1, "Blessed be the Lord, my strength, which teacheth my hands 
to war and my fingers to fight." 45 The press advised men to fulfill their 
patriotic duty by enlisting in the army, and ministers were urged to 
enter the chaplaincy. Southerners from the Potomac to the Rio Grande 
were implored to be of one heart against the invader and were assured 
that there was nothing "in Christianity opposed to . . . patriotism." 46 
Those who were not able to participate in military campaigns were 
advised that they might purchase bonds and send books, tracts, food, 
clothing, and medical supplies to the soldiers, and pray for the south- 
ern cause. 47 Congregations were informed that they might display their 
patriotic sympathies by donating the church bell to be made into arma- 
ments. 48 During the war some clergymen made patriotic speeches on 
behalf of the Confederacy. In 1861 Benjamin Palmer was asked by 
the governor of Louisiana to speak in that state and to urge the people 
to support the Confederate government; several years later Joseph C. 
Stiles traveled throughout Georgia and spoke to the citizens on behalf 
of the southern cause. 49 

Unpatriotic behavior such as desertion, speculation in food and 
clothing, and subscribing to an oath of allegiance to the federal gov- 
ernment were condemned as wicked and sinful. 50 Persons in areas 
occupied by federal authorities were advised not to take an oath of 
loyalty to the United States government. It was explained that if one 
took such an oath it would be an endorsement of the "crimes of the 
Lincoln government" and would make one "an accomplice in mur- 
der." It was also claimed that taking the oath would ostracize 
one's family from society because it would be interpreted as an 

** Thomas C. Johnson, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer (Rich- 
mond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1906), 238, hereinafter cited as 
Johnson, Palmer. 

"Johnson, Palmer, 237. 

"North Carolina Presbyterian, April 27, 1861; Central Presbyterian, March 12, 

"Central Presbyterian, November 1, 1861, September 11, 1862; Journal of William 
H. Foote, December 29, 1863, Union Theological Seminary Library, Richmond, 

"John A. Inglish to Allan MacFarlane, May 26, 1862, Allan MacFarlane Papers, 
Manuscript Department, Duke University Library, Durham; Robert Stiles, Four 
Years Under Marse Robert (New York: Neale Publishing Company, 1903), 119. 

"Margaret B. DesChamps, "Benjamin Morgan Palmer, Orator-Preacher of the 
Confederacy," Southern Journal of Speech, XIX (September, 1953), 19; Southern 
Christian Advocate (Augusta, Georgia), February 11, 1864, hereinafter cited as 
Southern Christian Advocate. 

60 Central Presbyterian, April 9, 1863, March 20, 1864. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 239 

act of treason. 51 Benjamin Palmer proclaimed that duty to race and 
country forbade one to subscribe to an oath of loyalty to the United 
States government, and he urged southerners in occupied areas to 
choose the scaffold or dungeon rather than the dishonor which would 
accompany oath taking. 52 Palmer chose neither the scaffold nor the 
dungeon; when Federal troops approached his area he fled. 

Numerous Presbyterian clergymen heeded the advice of denomi- 
national spokesmen and entered the army as chaplains and as officers. 
The army was described as a place where the "field was ripe for the 
harvest" and ministers were needed to take the word of God to men 
who were exposed to danger and death, and to save them from such 
evils of camp life as gambling, drinking, and cursing. 53 During the 
war approximately one hundred Presbyterian clergymen entered the 
chaplaincy. 54 Presbyterian leaders were more active than other church- 
men in trying— albeit unsuccessfully— to persuade the Confederate gov- 
ernment to make adequate provisions for chaplains. 55 Therefore, in 
1862 the Synod of Virginia appointed Moses Drury Hoge to correspond 
with chaplains and colonels concerning chaplain vacancies and to 
work with mission committees in local presbyteries in trying to secure 
able ministers for the chaplaincy. 56 In May, 1863, the General Assem- 
bly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States decided to 
supplement the government salary of Presbyterian chaplains so that 
they would have an income of one thousand dollars a year. 57 The fol- 
lowing year it was reported that 80 percent of the Presbyterian chap- 
lains received partial or entire support from the denomination. 58 The 
efforts of this church to provide chaplains elicited praise from a 
Baptist editor who said, "The Presbyterians are more zealous in sup- 
plying chaplains than any other [denomination] . . . and they are men 
of the best intellects and attainments." 59 

61 Central Presbyterian, April 17, 1862. 

62 Central Presbyterian, March 12, 1863. 

53 Southern Presbyterian, February 22, 1862. 

54 Herman A. Norton, "The Organization and Function of the Confederate Military- 
Chaplaincy, 1861-1865" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 
1956), 96-98, states that the Presbyterians had approximately one hundred chaplains; 
Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 336-338, lists seventy- 
two Presbyterian clergymen who were commissioned chaplains during the war. 

55 Moses D. Hoge to W. P. Miles, Chairman of the Committee of Military Affairs, 
May 7, 1862, Moses D. Hoge Papers, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville. 

66 Minutes of the Synod of Virginia at Their Session in Staunton, October, 1862 
[cover to this publication is missing; copy may be found in Duke Universitv Librarvl. 

57 Central Presbyterian, November 5, 1863, November 7, 1864. 

58 Religious Herald (Richmond, Virginia), February 18, 1864, hereinafter cited as 
Religious Herald. 

59 Central Presbyterian, October 1, 1863. Quoted from the Confederate Baptist 
(Columbia, South Carolina). 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

'A Service Interrupted," an illustration from Christ in the Camp, by J. William Jones. 

Other Presbyterian clergymen served in the Confederate forces as 
officers, and there is no evidence that southern Presbyterians ques- 
tioned the propriety of ministers' bearing arms. 60 Robert L. Dabney 
served as aide-de-camp to "Stonewall" Jackson during the summer of 

60 The Southern Presbyterian, September 7, 1861, declared that ministers were 
justified in bearing arms. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 241 

1862, and preached to the troops whenever conditions permitted. One 
colonel said of him, "our parson is not afraid of Yankee bullets, and I 
tell you he preached like hell." 61 111 health forced Dabney's retirement 
before the end of the year. 62 The Reverend J. M. P. Atkinson, presi- 
dent of Hampden-Sydney College, was elected captain of a military 
company of students and pledged to "lead them wherever duty 
calls." 63 Other Presbyterian ministers who served as officers included 
J. H. McNeill, F. McMurray, L. L. Miller, and J. J. McMahon. Mc- 
Neill, an officer of the American Bible Society, resigned his position 
when the war began, returned to North Carolina and became a lieu- 
tenant colonel in the Confederate army. 64 McMurray was the pastor 
of a Presbyterian church in Union Springs, Alabama, and entered the 
army as the captain of a company composed almost entirely of his 
church members. 65 L. L. Miller was elected captain of the Thomasville 
Rifles in North Carolina, 66 and J. J. McMahon served as a colonel in 
Floyd's Brigade. 67 Among the Presbyterian ministers killed in battle 
were Dabney Carr Harrison, Robert L. McLain, James M. Richardson, 
and W. P. Hickman. Harrison, the captain of a company in the Forty- 
sixth Virginia Brigade, was killed at Fort Donelson. 68 McLain, a colo- 
nel in the Thirty-seventh Mississippi Regiment, died from wounds 
suffered at Shiloh; 69 Richardson was killed when he led a company of 
troops against Federal forces at Marietta, Georgia, 70 and Hickman was 
killed at Cloyd's Farm in Virginia on May 9, 1864. 71 

Although the vast majority of Presbyterian clergymen were vigorous 
advocates of the southern cause, a few of them— scattered from Vir- 
ginia to Texas— were opposed to secession and were Unionist in senti- 
ment. At least two Presbyterian ministers in Virginia, Orr Swanson 
and Arthur Mitchell, were removed from church membership because 

01 Johnson, Dabney, 264. 

62 Johnson, Dabney, 263. 

63 Religious Herald, April 25, 1861. 

64 R. L. Stanton, The Church and the Rebellion, A Consideration of the Rebellion 
Against the Government of the United States; and the Agency of the Church, North 
and South, in Relation Thereto (New York: Derby and Miller, 1864), 175. 

65 James Stacy, A History of the Presbyterian Church in Georgia (Atlanta: West- 
minster Company, 1912), 181, hereinafter cited as Stacy, Presbyterian Church in 

66 North Carolina Christian Advocate (Raleigh), April 29, 1861. 

^Christian Observer, September 11, 1862. 

" William J. Hoge, Sketch of Dabney Carr Harrison, Minister of the Gospel and 
Captain in the Army of the Confederate States of America (Richmond: Presbyterian 
Committee of Publications, 1862), 17-20. 

™ Christian Observer, September 11, 1862. 

'° Minutes of the Synod of Mississippi, 1861-1867 (Jackson: Clarion Steam Publi- 
cation Establishment, 1880), 51, hereinafter cited as Synod of Mississippi, 1861-1867. 
tt . Mll ™ tes of the Montgomery Presbytery, Christiansburg, Virginia, June 1-3, 1865, 
Union Theological Seminary Library. 

242 The North Carolina Historical Review 

they left the state and went north. 72 J. R. Graves, a Presbyterian minis- 
ter in North Carolina, was once accused of treason because of his 
Union sympathies, and Eli Caruthers was forced to resign from his 
pulpit in Greensboro because of his pro-Union views. 73 William Blount 
Carter, Presbyterian minister at Elizabethton, Tennessee, was per- 
haps the most active pro-Union clergyman in the South. In the sum- 
mer of 1861, he conferred in Washington with President Lincoln, 
Secretary William H. Seward, and General George B. McClellan con- 
cerning a plan to wreck Confederate railway communications and 
capitalize on Union sentiment in the East Tennessee area. The plan, 
approved and financed by Federal authorities, called for Carter and 
other Unionists to arrange for a simultaneous destruction of the nine 
railroad bridges from Bristol, Tennessee, to Bridgeport, Alabama. The 
bridge burning was to be accompanied by the invasion of a Federal 
army into East Tennessee. It was later agreed that the plan be exe- 
cuted on the night of November 6, 1861. On this date five bridges were 
destroyed and telegraph lines from Bristol to Chattanooga were 
wrecked. 74 

The most prominent Presbyterian clergyman who criticized slavery, 
secession, and the role assumed by many ministers during the war 
was James A. Lyon. Lyon was a native of East Tennessee and had 
preached at Columbus, Mississippi, since 1841. Throughout the war 
he was a critic of the course of action adopted by the South but he 
did not leave the area nor was he molested. One historian has written 
that Lyon's long tenure of service at Columbus had given him a posi- 
tion of leadership and respect in society that transcended political 
differences. 75 Other Presbyterian clergymen of Union sympathies were 
beaten, imprisoned, forced from their homes, and even murdered. 76 

The war created new problems for the church as it sought to minister 
effectively to the religious needs of its membership. Paramount among 

"Minutes of the Lexington Presbytery, November 22, 1864; Minutes of the United 
Presbyterian Church, Richmond, October 31, 1861, Union Theological Seminary 

73 Central Presbyterian, December 25, 1862, June 18, 1863; Sketch of Caruthers by 
J. C. Wharton, 6, 8, Eli W. Caruthers Papers, Duke Manuscript Department. 

74 Oliver P. Temple, East Tennessee and the Civil War (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke 
Company, 1899), 368-371, 379, 388; Georgia Lee Tatum, Disloyalty in the Confederacy 
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1934), 146; J. Reuben Sheeler, 
"The Development of Unionism in East Tennessee, 1860-1866," Journal of Negro 
History, XXIX (April, 1944), 189, 190. 

75 Journal of the Reverend James A. Lyon, 1861-1870, Mississippi Department of 
Archives and History, Jackson, 9, 39, 40-41; John K. Bettersworth (ed.), "Mississippi 
Unionism: The Case of the Reverend James A. Lyon," Journal of Mississippi History, 
I (January, 1939), 37, 52. 

78 John H. Aughey, Tupelo (Lincoln, Nebraska: State Journal Company, 1888), 69- 
72, 109, 144, 280; William S. Red, A History of the Presbyterian Church in Texas 
(n.p.: The Steck Company, 1936), 188. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 243 

these problems was the need to provide for the spiritual welfare of 
the soldiers. Since the government never made more than token efforts 
to provide chaplains, the denominations embarked upon programs of 
army missions. At the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian Church in the Confederate States in the spring of 1863, the 
church combined its domestic and foreign mission boards. John L. 
Wilson was made secretary and attention was to center on army mis- 
sions. 77 Wilson's initial task was to mail a circular letter to eighty min- 
isters, asking if they would enter the army and labor as missionaries. 
In less than two months sixty were serving in the army. 78 The General 
Assembly also appointed commissioners to the different divisions of 
the army. These men were to serve as chaplains, aid in securing chap- 
lains for vacant regiments, circulate religious literature, and make 
reports to the secretary of the mission board. The men appointed to 
the Army of Northern Virginia were B. T. Lacy and Theodorick Pry or. 
John N. Waddel was appointed to the Army of Mississippi, Drury Lacy 
to the Army of Eastern North Carolina, John Douglas to the Army of 
South Carolina, Rufus Porter to the Army of Georgia and Florida, 
Henry M. Smith to the army west of the Mississippi River, and Ben- 
jamin Palmer to the Army of Tennessee. 79 Palmer, because of illness, 
was shortly replaced by William Flinn. 80 The Presbyterian press and 
local synods and presbyteries suggested that ministers visit the army 
for two- or four-week periods annually and preach to the troops. 81 The 
commissioners and missionaries were supported by funds locally col- 
lected and sent to Wilson at Columbia, South Carolina. A Presbyterian 
missionary was paid $2,400 a year; and the last two years of the war 
this denomination spent over $100,000 annually on army missions. 82 

77 Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States of America, with an Appendix, 1863 (Columbia, South Carolina: Southern 
Guardian Steam-Power Press, 1863), 164, hereinafter cited as General Assembly, 

78 Hampden C. DuBose, Memoirs of Rev. John Leighton Wilson (Richmond: Presby- 
terian Committee of Publication, 1895), 253. 

79 Central Presbyterian, September 10, 1863; General Assembly, 1863, 139. 

80 Henry A. White, Southern Presbyterian Leaders (New York: Neale Publishing 
Company, 1911), 341. 

81 Minutes of the One Hundred and First Session of the Presbytery of Fayetteville. 
Held at Pike Church, New Hanover County, North Carolina, October 8-10, 1863 
(Fayetteville: Printed at the Presbyterian Office, 1863), 10; Minutes of the Synod 
of Virginia. Held at Lexington, in October 1864 [cover to this publication is missing; 
copy may be found in Duke University Library], 355; Minutes of the Fall Session 
of the Presbytery of South Carolina. Held at Upper Long Cane Church, Abbeville, 
September 23-26, 1863 (Greenville: G. E. Elford's Press, 1863), 14, 15. 

82 Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States of America, with an Appendix, 186U (Columbia, South Carolina: Steam Power 
Presses of Evans and Cogswell, 1864), 317, hereinafter cited as General Assembly, 
186 U; Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States, with an Appendix, 1865 (Augusta, Georgia: Constitutionalist Job Office, 1865), 
390; hereinafter cited as General Assembly, 1865. 

244 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Under the program of army missions the ablest clergymen in the 
church visited the camps and conducted worship services. 83 In Janu- 
ary, 1865, it was reported that 112 Presbyterian ministers were serving 
in camps and hospitals. 84 

A significant feature of religious activity during the war was the 
degree of interdenominational cooperation. The spirit of Christian 
harmony, which had often been absent prior to 1860, manifested itself 
in the religious press, in the camp activities of chaplains and mis- 
sionaries, and in publishing ventures. During the war arguments of 
theology and polity were dropped, and the overall tone of religious 
discussions was one of optimism, hope, and confidence. One news- 
paper editor noted "the entente cordiale prevails in [the] denomina- 
tional press" and explained that "these are times when all hearts and 
hands should be united . . . and church controversies should not divide 
the people." 85 Robert L. Dabney asserted that "by a common and silent 
consent, all subjects of sectarian debate were excluded" from religious 
discussions during the war, and churchmen confined their delibera- 
tions "to the interests of our common Christianity." 86 Union prayer 
meetings and fast day observances were common practices on the 
home front, 87 and the sermons preached in camp were described as 
being suitable for any congregation in the country since they focused 
on "Jesus Christ and Him crucified." 88 

The formation of chaplains' associations, army churches, and Chris- 
tian associations illustrate the ecumenical spirit of the southern 
churches in wartime. The Chaplain's Association of the Army of 
Northern Virginia— the first organization of its kind in the army— was 
organized on March 16, 1863. This agency was suggested by the 
Presbyterian deacon, "Stonewall" Jackson, and was formed by B. T. 
Lacy, a Presbyterian clergyman who was elected the first president 
of the association. 89 The purpose of this organization was to consoli- 
date and coordinate religious work in the various army corps and to 

83 Robert L. Dabney, Life and Campaigns of Lieut.-Gen. Thomas J. Jackson (New 
York: Blelock and Company, 1866), 584, hereinafter cited as Dabney, Jackson. 

84 Religious Herald, January 12, 1865; Benjamin R. Lacy, Jr., Revivals in the Midst 
of the Years (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1943), 137. 

85 Christian Advocate (Nashville, Tennessee), December 12, 1861. 

87 Willard E. Wight (ed.), "The Diary of the Reverend Charles S. Vedder, May- 
July, 1861," Georgia Historical Quarterly, XXXIX (March, 1955), 71-73, 77, 80, 82, 
84; Central Presbyterian, October 29, April 2, 1863; North Carolina Presbyterian, 
March 4, 1864. 

88 J. William Jones, Christ in the Camp, or Religion in Lee's Army (Richmond: 
B. F. Johnson and Company, 1887), 14-15, hereinafter cited as Jones, Christ in the 
Camp; John B. McFerrin, "Religion in the Army of Tennessee," Home Monthly, IV 
(January, 1868), 27, hereinafter cited as McFerrin, "Religion in the Army of 

89 Jones, Christ in the Camp, 230; Dabney, Jackson, 651. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 245 

try to provide worship services for the troops in all of the regiments. 
The chaplains held weekly meetings at which times they would dis- 
cuss their activities and problems, arrange to concert their labors, and 
devise means for supplying those regiments without chaplains. They 
also corresponded with ministers and arranged for them to visit the 
camp and preach to the soldiers, and they sought to recruit chaplains. 90 
Chaplains' associations were effective agencies and were later formed 
in all divisions of the army. 91 

The preaching of the chaplains and missionaries resulted in a series 
of revivals in the armies which began in 1862 and continued inter- 
mittently throughout the war. 92 To preserve the interest in religion and 
to hold new converts firm in the faith, clergymen in the camps or- 
ganized army churches and Christian associations. The first army 
church was formed in the winter of 1863-1864 in Sterling Price's 
command. The Reverend Enoch Marvin and other chaplains drew 
up the articles of faith and a constitution for this church. Men of any 
denominational preference were admitted and the only occasion when 
denominationalism was noted was at the baptism of new converts. 
Those who expressed a Methodist or Presbyterian preference were 
sprinkled, and those who expressed a preference for the Baptist church 
were immersed. It was the custom for chaplains to give to all mem- 
bers of the army church certificates which were usually recognized by 
the home churches of the converts when they were presented for 
membership. 93 The idea of the army church became popular and spread 
to other areas; churches similar to the one in Price's command were 
organized in the Army of Tennessee and in the Army of Northern 
Virginia. 94 

Christian associations were not the same as army churches. One 
did not have to express the desire of becoming a church member to 

90 Dabney, Jackson, 648; Central Presbyterian, September 10, 1863; Religious Herald, 
September 3, 1863. 

91 Army and Navy Messenger (Petersburg, Virginia), February 1, 1864, hereinafter 
cited as Army and Navy Messenger; McFerrin, "Religion in the Army of Tennessee," 
28; William W. Bennett, A Narrative of the Great Revival Which Prevailed in the 
Southern Armies During the Late Civil War Between the States of the Federal 
Union (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen and Haffelfinger, 1877), 245, 347, hereinafter 
cited as Bennett, The Great Revival. 

92 The story of the army revivals has been told in detail by two ministers who 
participated in them. W. W. Bennett, a Methodist, has told the story in his book, 
The Great Revival, and J. W. Jones, a Baptist, has described the revivals in his 
Christ in the Camp. 

93 Horace Jewell, History of Methodism in Arkansas (Little Rock: Press Printing 
Company, 1892), 178-179. 

94 Albert T. Goodloe, Confederate Echoes: A Voice From the South in the Days of 
Secession and of the Southern Confederacy (Nashville: Publishing House of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1907), 401, hereinafter cited as Goodloe, Con- 
federate Echoes; McFerrin, "Religion in the Army of Tennessee," 28; Richmond 
Christian Advocate (Richmond, Virginia), February 19, 1863, hereinafter cited as 
Richmond Christian Advocate; Soldier's Visitor, January, 1865. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

"Lee at the Soldiers' Prayer Meeting," an illustration from A Narrative of the 
Great Revival Which Prevailed in the Southern Armies during the Late Civil War, 
by William W. Bennett. 

belong to that type of organization. The Soldier s Christian Associa- 
tion of the Tenth Virginia Regiment proclaimed that "all who desire 
to do better, whether church member or not" were welcome. 95 William 
Flinn, a Presbyterian chaplain stationed near Fredericksburg, read the 
preamble and purpose of the Christian association of his North 
Carolina troops. 

We . . . desiring to secure to ourselves while in the army, the comforts 
and benefits of Christian fellowship, to promote our own spirituality and 
growth in grace, and to increase our usefulness as Christians to those 
around us, agree to form an association. All who are members of any 
branch of the Church are entitled to admittance. . . . All from the world 
who profess their faith in Christ and their purpose to lead a Godly life 
are received. 96 

Members of these nondenominational organizations conducted prayer 
meetings when the chaplain was absent, strove to form associations 
in other regiments, and helped to circulate religious readings among 

95 Richmond Christian Advocate, May 7, 1863. 

98 Reverend William Flinn to W. L. Mitchell, April 24, 1863, William L. Mitchell 
Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 247 

the troops. 97 They also sought to discourage insubordination and deser- 
tion. 98 Christian associations were found in all departments of the 
army. 99 

Southern Presbyterians were diligent in their efforts to provide 
Christian reading materials for the people of the South, especially for 
the men in uniform. Alone and in cooperation with other denomina- 
tions, Presbyterians sought to provide Bibles, New Testaments, tracts, 
and religious newspapers for the people. At the first meeting of the 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States, there was created the Assembly's Executive Committee of 
Publications with headquarters in Richmond. 100 This committee con- 
sisted of a secretary and ten other members, and the approval of seven 
members was required of all manuscripts accepted for publication. 101 
It was requested that the local churches make special contributions to 
support this agency, whose purpose was to provide books and pamph- 
lets for the membership of the denomination. 102 By 1863 the commit- 
tee was concerned primarily with providing reading matter for the 
soldiers. It published tracts, hymn books, and a semimonthly news- 
paper for the soldiers entitled the Soldiers Visitor. This paper, edited 
by John Leyburn, was printed in Richmond; the first issue appeared in 
August, 1863, and the last edition was that of February, 1865. The 
paper contained sermons, reprints of tracts, devotional readings, let- 
ters, and news; each issue consisted of 8,000 copies which were distri- 
buted gratis to the soldiers. 103 Voluntary donations permitted the 
publishers of the different Presbyterian newspapers to send copies to 
the camps for free distribution. In 1863 it was reported that 2,000 
copies of the Central Presbyterian were sent to the army each week; 
and that 3,000 and 4,000 copies respectively of the Christian Observer 
and the Southern Presbyterian were distributed in the army each 
week. 104 

A valiant effort was made in 1863 by Moses Hoge, pastor of the 
Second Presbyterian Church in Richmond, to secure Bibles and tracts 
in England. Hoge was sent to Britain as an emissary of the Virginia 

97 Goodloe, Confederate Echoes, 378, 384, 391, 420. 

98 David E. Johnston, The Story of A Confederate Boy in the Civil War (Portland, 
Oregon: Glass and Prudhomme, 1914), 291-292. 

00 Richmond Christian Advocate, May 7, 1863; Central Presbyterian, March 5, 1863; 
Southern Christian Advocate, April 13, 1865. 

100 General Assembly, 1861, 40. 

101 General Assembly, 1861, 40. 

102 General Assembly, 1861, 40. 

103 General Assembly, 1863, 147; General Assembly, 1864, 308; Christian Observer, 
August 13, 1863; Henry S. Stroupe, The Religious Press in the South Atlantic 
States, 1802-1865: An Annotated Bibliography with Historical Introduction and Notes 
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1956), 103. 

104 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 255. 

248 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Moses Drury Hoge, D.D., pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in Richmond, 
traveled to England in 1863 to purchase Bibles, New Testaments, and tracts for 
distribution in the Confederacy. Photograph from Christ in the Camp. 

Bible Society and of the Presbyterian Committee of Publications to 
purchase a supply of Bibles, New Testaments, and tracts. He was to 
ship those items to Nassau, and from there southerners were to try to 
bring them through the blockade. Hoge was well received in England; 
the board of managers of the British and Foreign Bible Society gave 
him a grant of 10,000 Bibles, 50,000 New Testaments, and 250,000 
portions of Psalms and Gospels, and the Religious Tract Society gave 
him tracts and pamphlets valued at £300. This literature was brought 
to Nassau but only a fraction of it escaped the blockade and reached 
the Confederacy. 105 

Presbyterian representatives were present at Augusta in March, 
1862, when a group of churchmen, representing all of the major 
Protestant denominations, met and organized the Bible Society in 
the Confederate States of America. Although the Bible Society was 
hampered by a shortage of materials it published several printings 
of the New Testament and was ably supported by the southern Pres- 
byterians. 106 Presbyterians were also active in at least four nondenomi- 
national organizations whose purpose was to provide religious litera- 

105 Central Presbyterian, April 16, December 17, 1863; Christian Observer, July 23, 
1863; Hoge, Moses Drury Hoge, 169, 180; W. Edwin Hemphill, "Bibles Through the 
Blockade," Commonwealth, XVI (August, 1949), 9-12, 30-32. 

io6 Proceedings of the Bible Convention of the Confederate States of America, Includ- 
ing the Minutes of the Organization of the Bible Society, Augusta, Georgia, March 
19-21, 1862, and Also A Sermon Preached Before The Convention by the Rev. George 
F. Pierce, D.D., Bishop of the M. E. Church, South (Augusta: Printed at the Con- 
stitutionalist Office, 1862), 9; First Annual Report of the Bible Society of the Confeder- 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 249 

ture for the people of the South. The Evangelical Tract Society was 
formed by a committee of Christians in Petersburg in the summer of 
1861. A publishing committee, created to determine which manuscripts 
should be printed, included a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Baptist, 
and an Episcopalian. During the war this society printed over one 
hundred different tracts which totaled in excess of 60 million pages, 
and published a semimonthly newspaper, the Army and Navy Mes- 
senger. 107 In June, 1861, a group of ministers representing the different 
churches in Raleigh, established the General Tract Agency. The pub- 
lications of this organization were praised by Presbyterian clergymen 
and chaplains. 108 The South Carolina Tract Society and the Tract So- 
ciety of Houston were also supported by the Presbyterians. 109 

The widely held view that the war was partly the judgment of God 
upon the people of the South for failure to Christianize the Negro 
prompted a reevaluation of certain aspects of slavery during the war. 110 
In 1861 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Con- 
federate States appointed a three-man committee, made up of James 
A. Lyon, Charles C. Jones, and T. Pryor, to prepare a report on reli- 
gious instruction for colored people. 111 This committee asserted that 
slaves had the same claim upon their masters for religious instruction 
as did the masters' children, and slaveowners were urged to provide 
religious instruction for them and to permit them to attend worship 
services. It was also the duty of large planters, the committee affirmed, 
to provide chapels for their slaves. 112 Presbyterians believed that there 
were certain abuses in the slave system which were contrary to biblical 
teachings and should be corrected. A committee of the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian Church reported in 1863 that there should 
be laws to protect the marriage and family life of slaves. "To ignore 
such legislation," it was claimed, "sets at defiance the precepts of the 

ate States of America, 1863 (Augusta: Printed at the Constitutionalist Office, 1863), 6, 
11 ; Second Annual Report of the Bible Society of the Confederate States of America, 
186U (Augusta: Steam Power Press of Stockton and Company, 1864), 8; Christian 
Observer, May 21, 1863. 

107 Christian Observer, July 10, 1862; Army and Navy Messenger, March 16, 1865. 

108 W. J. W. Crowder, General Tract Agency, Raleigh, North Carolina (Raleigh: 
General Tract Agency, 1862), 1-4. 

109 Descriptive Catalogue of the Tracts Published by the South Carolina Tract Society 
(Charleston: Evans and Cogswell, n.d.), 19-23; Christian Observer, January 21, 1864. 

110 Joseph B. Cheshire, The Church in the Confederate States: A History of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States (New York: Longmans, Green, 
and Company, 1914), 117; Christian Index, March 23, 1863; Southern Christian 
Advocate, January 14, 1864. 

111 General Assembly, 1861, 15. 

112 J. Leighton Wilson, "Religious Instruction of the Colored People," Southern Pres- 
byterian Review, XVI (October, 1863), 191, 194; Central Presbyterian, February 19, 


250 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Bible, the dictates of nature, and the moral sentiments of humanity." 113 
The Presbyterians in Georgia petitioned the legislature of that state 
to enact legislation legalizing slave marriages. 114 Laws which forbade 
the teaching of slaves to read and write were also considered abuses 
of the slave system, since they interfered with the master's duty to 
Christianize his slaves; and in 1863 the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church recommended that all laws prohibiting the teach- 
ing of a slave to read and write be repealed. 115 

There was some private discussion among Presbyterian leaders dur- 
ing the war concerning the propriety of emancipation. In 1861 James 
H. Thornwell informed Benjamin Palmer that while in Europe the 
previous summer he had decided to advocate the gradual emancipa- 
tion of slaves. He believed that emancipation would restore harmony 
to the nation; however, when he returned to South Carolina in Septem 
ber, 1860, he decided that it was too late to offer such a proposal. 
Robert L. Dabney claimed that the South should have begun gradual 
emancipation following the defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg; such 
a policy, he believed, would have prompted assistance from France 
and England. 117 The opinions of Thornwell and Dabney were not 
publicly expressed and were suggested as a course of expedient action 
rather than reflecting a belief in the evils of slavery. When news of 
the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South it was denounced by 
spokesmen in all of the major denominations. The Presbyterian press 
labeled the Proclamation an invitation to the slaves to rise up en 
masse and spread murder, arson, and desolation throughout the land; 
it was also claimed that the Proclamation proved the hypocrisy of the 
North— which maintained it was fighting to preserve the Union but was 
actually fighting to destroy southern institutions and property. 118 In a 
fast day sermon Benjamin Palmer claimed that the North was fighting 
"to put the descendants of Ham over us." 119 In the spring of 1863, a 
group of ministers in Richmond prepared a document which was 
signed by ninety-eight clergymen, including forty-one Presbyterians. 
Entitled An Address to Christians Throughout the World, it was a 
protest against the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation was 

113 James A. Lyon, "Slavery and the Duties Growing Out of the Relation," Southern 
Presbyterian Review, XVI (July, 1863), 25, hereinafter cited as Lyon, "Slavery and 
the Duties." 

114 Southern Presbyterian, December 1, 1864. 

115 Lyon, "Slavery and the Duties," 19. 

116 Benjamin M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell (Rich- 
mond: Whittet and Shepperson, 1875), 482-483, hereinafter cited as Palmer, Thorn- 

111 Johnson, Dabney, 283. 

118 Central Presbyterian, October 2, 1862; Christian Observer, January 15, 1863. 

119 Benjamin M. Palmer, Rainbow Round the Throne, 38. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 251 

described as a political document designed to placate fanatics in the 
North and an invitation to slave revolts. It was asserted that the Procla- 
mation was not a show of mercy toward the slave but of malice toward 
the master. 120 

Secession and the war had certain immediate and pronounced 
effects upon the Presbyterian church in the South. The most signifi- 
cant was the disruption of the church into two sectional bodies. As 
early as November 28, 1860, some members of the Synod of South 
Carolina wished to dissolve their connections with the General Assem- 
bly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and 
form a separate general assembly in the South. 121 From December, 
1860, the Presbyterian press in the South discussed the possibility of 
a split in the church. In South Carolina, Thornwell predicted "a great 
and terrible division," in the church and the Southern Presbyterian 
declared "there . . . ought to be ... a division." 122 In the months prior 
to Fort Sumter a number of southern presbyteries met but some of 
them did not elect delegates to attend the General Assembly, which 
was scheduled to meet at Philadelphia in mid-May. 123 

When the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America met on May 16, 1861, the war had begun, 
and few southerners were present. Some presbyteries had refused to 
elect delegates, and most of those who had been elected refused to 
attend. The dangers of travel, the fear that they would not be received 
in a friendly manner, and the belief "that Southern men had no busi- 
ness in such an assembly" were among the reasons given for their 
absence. 124 There were sixteen commissioners from the South and 
they represented only thirteen of the forty-seven southern presbyteries; 
no delegates were present from North Carolina, South Carolina, Geor- 
gia, Alabama, or Arkansas. 125 It appeared, in fact, that the southern 
Presbyterians had already withdrawn from the General Assembly; 
however, it was the adoption by the assembly of a resolution, intro- 
duced by Gardiner Spring of New York, which pledged allegiance 
and loyalty to the federal government and the Constitution, that per- 

120 Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America, 
During the Great Rebellion . . . (Washington, D. C: Solomons and Chapman, 1876), 

121 Minutes of the Synod of South Carolina, November 28, 1860, Historical Founda- 
tion of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. 

122 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 96, 120. 

123 rp Watson Street, The Story of Southern Presbyterians (Richmond: John Knox 
Press, 1960), 56, hereinafter cited as Street, Southern Presbyterians. 

124 Street, Southern Presbyterians, 56 ; Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in 
the South, 1607-1861 (Richmond: John Knox Press [Volume I of a projected multi- 
volume series, 1963 — ]), I, 563-564, hereinafter cited as Thompson, Presbyterians in 
the South. 

135 Street, Southern Presbyterians, 56. 

252 The North Carolina Historical Review 

mitted southern Presbyterians to claim that they were "forced out of 
the church." 126 

In the summer and fall of 1861, forty-seven southern presbyteries 
dissolved their connection with the General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States of America and many of them 
suggested that a convention of southern Presbyterian delegates meet 
and form a new denominational organization. 127 The first Presbyterian 
bodies to take this action were the presbyteries of Orange and Mem- 
phis. On June 14 the Orange Presbytery in North Carolina adopted a 
resolution that favored the establishment of a Presbyterian church in 
the Confederate States, and recommended that all of the southern 
presbyteries send delegates to a convention in Augusta on December 4 
to form such an organization. The Memphis Presbytery met June 
13-14 and denounced the Gardiner Spring resolution, dissolved all 
connection with the General Assembly, and suggested a special meet- 
ing of church leaders to discuss the future of southern Presbyterian- 
ism. 128 These appeals, together with those of other presbyteries, re- 
sulted in a convention of churchmen, which met in Atlanta on August 
15. Delegates to this meeting renounced all association with the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America and asked that all southern presbyteries send commissioners 
to a general assembly which was to be held in Augusta on December 
4, 1861. 129 At the December meeting the representatives of the forty- 
seven presbyteries in the Confederate States formed the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of 
America and elected Benjamin Morgan Palmer as its first moderator. 130 
This church adopted the same creedal statements and polity as the 
older assembly, but affirmed its allegiance to the Confederate govern- 

Although secession and the war resulted in a split in the Presby- 
terian church, these same forces contributed to the unity of Presby- 
terianism in the South and helped to effect the merger of three differ- 
ent ecclesiastical organizations into one church. In October, 1861, 
the Synod of Nashville suggested the possibility of union among the 
various Presbyterian factions, and the Synod of Virginia expressed 
the desire for "fraternal correspondence" of all southern Presbyterian 
bodies. From the fall and winter of 1861-1862, the possibilities and 

126 Johnson, Palmer, 242 ; Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 564-567 ; Street, 
Southern Presbyterians, 57-59; Thomas C. Johnson, History of the Southern Presby- 
terian Church (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911), 325ff. 

127 Palmer, Thornwell, 502. 

^Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 122-123. 

129 Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 567. 

130 Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 571. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 253 

problems of church union were discussed in the denominational news- 
papers, with most of the comment being favorable to union. 131 In the 
fall of 1863 the Independent Presbyterian Church, which was repre- 
sented by thirteen congregations, merged with the Bethel Presbytery 
of the Synod of South Carolina and became a part of the Presbyterian 
Church in the Confederate States of America. 132 In 1863 the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States and 
the United Synod of new school Presbyterians appointed commis- 
sioners to formulate a plan of merger. Representatives of both 
groups met in Lynchburg on July 24, 1863, and agreed on a plan. 
After minor alterations the plan was approved by the General Assem- 
bly and the meeting of the United Synod, and in 1864 the 12,000 
United Synod Presbyterians became a part of the Presbyterian Church 
in the Confederate States of America. 133 Discussions of merger with 
the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church were cordial but did 
not result in union. 

Presbyterian churches in areas which were invaded by the enemy 
suffered property damage and desecration. Church buildings, equip- 
ment, records, and parsonages were often attacked and destroyed; 134 
a recent study claims that more than sixty Presbyterian church build 
ings were either destroyed or seriously damaged during the war. 
Some church buildings were taken over by military authorities and 
converted into hospitals, and the basement of one Presbyterian church 
in Atlanta was used as a slaughterhouse after that city fell to Sher- 
man. 136 The denomination suffered a severe property loss when the 
trustees of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Columbia, South 
Carolina, invested over $250,000 of the institution's endowment in 
Confederate bonds. 137 

Another consequence of the war was the loss of membership and a 
decline in the number of clergymen. The absence of ministers, the 
scattered nature of many congregations, the draft policies of the Con- 
federate government, and the destruction wrought by the invaders 
impeded the program of the church. 138 Numerous references mention 


131 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 142-143, 211. 

132 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 5, 251. 

133 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 244-269. 

134 Christian Observer, March 5, 1863; Central Presbyterian, December 10, 1863; 
J. B. Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital (Phila- 
delphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 2 volumes, 1866), II, 469. 

135 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 311. 

138 Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," 312 ; Minutes of 
the Hanover Presbytery, Salem Church, October 24, 1862, Union Theological Seminary 

137 Christian Index, May 20, 1864; General Assembly, 1865, 365. 

138 Robert E. Thompson, A History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United States 
(New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 163; General Assembly, 1863, 155; 

254 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the loss of members; the membership of Presbyterian churches in 
North Carolina declined by more than two thousand during the war, 
and the loss was greater elsewhere. 139 The denomination's program of 
higher education was interrupted by the war and practically all college 
level instruction ceased. The refusal of the Confederate government to 
exempt ministerial students from military service caused a decline in 
the number of clergymen during the war years. The faculties of the 
Presbyterian seminaries in South Carolina and Virginia petitioned 
Confederate authorities to change this policy and to permit young 
men who were preparing for the ministry to forego military service, 
but their petitions were ignored. 140 The effects of this policy were 
noted when it was reported that the Presbytery of Charleston ordained 
only one man during the four war years, and in North Carolina the 
church gained only eight clergymen, some of whom moved into the 
state from other areas. 141 

The war also prevented the meeting of numerous presbyteries and 
synods. In some areas ecclesiastical meetings were suspended entirely. 
The Synod of Nashville, which embraced middle and eastern Tennes- 
see and northern Alabama, did not meet in 1862, 1863, and 1864; the 
Texas Synod did not meet in 1863, since a quorum was not present, 
and the 1864 meeting was cancelled. Most presbyteries in Mississippi 
did not meet in 1863 and 1864. 142 Denominational communications 
were interrupted on occasions when the Presbyterian weekly news- 
papers were forced to suspend publication. In many areas of the South 
all that could be expected was to preserve a semblance of denomina- 
tional organization, and church elders were requested to supply vacant 
pulpits. 143 

In conclusion it might be noted that leaders in the Presbyterian 
church were perhaps more outspoken and articulate in their pro- 
secession sentiments than other southern churchmen. The Southern 

Minutes of the Synod of South Carolina at its Sessions in 1862 and 1863 (Camden, 
South Carolina: W. K. Rodgers, 1864), 19; Synod of Mississippi, 1861-1867, 34, 49. 

139 Stacey, Presbyterian Church in Georgia, 182; Jones and Mills, Presbyterian 
Church in South Carolina, 372; D. I. Craig, A History of the Development of the 
Presbyterian Church in North Carolina (Richmond: Whittet and Shepperson, 1907), 
34, hereinafter cited as Craig, Presbyterian Church in North Carolina; H. M. White 
(ed.), Rev. William S. White, D.D., and His Times: An Autobiography (Richmond: 
Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1891), 175. 

140 Francis R. Flournoy, Benjamin Mosby Smith, 1811-1893 (Richmond: Richmond 
Press, 1947), 78. 

141 General Assembly, 1865, 366; Craig, Presbyterian Church in North Carolina, 34. 

142 Synod of Mississippi, 1861-1867, 34, 49; Minutes of the Texas Synod, 1863, 1864, 
Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; Minutes of the 
Synod of Nashville, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed 
Churches; Minutes of the Session of the Piedmont Presbyterian Church, Union Theo- 
logical Seminary; Christian Observer, September 29, 1864. 

143 Southern Presbyterian, October 6, 1864. 

Presbyterians in the Confederacy 255 

Presbyterian and prominent clergymen such as James H. Thornwell 
and Benjamin M. Palmer were vigorous exponents of southern nation- 
alism, but none of the Presbyterian apologists for the southern cause 
championed secession until after the election of Lincoln and the call 
for a state convention by the governor of South Carolina. The argu- 
ments of Presbyterian spokesmen, who advocated secession, were those 
made familiar by states' rights politicians who had voiced them in the 
Missouri Compromise debates forty years earlier. The influence of 
Presbyterian clergymen on the course of secession seems to have been 
minimal. The secession movement was essentially a political move- 
ment and was publicly embraced by religious leaders only in late 1860 
and early 1861. Evidence indicates that churchmen were followers 
of the movement rather than leaders. Blame for secession, the war, and 
the splitting of the denomination was placed on northerners. The 
church informed the people of the South that their war was a just and 
holy one, and all Christians were urged to pray for the welfare of the 
Confederate government and its armies. The Presbyterian church made 
valiant efforts to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers, to pro- 
vide religious readings for the people of the South, and to continue an 
effective ministry on the home front. Numerous ministers served as 
chaplains and missionaries in the army, and the Presbyterians labored 
diligently, both on the denominational level and with others, to pro- 
vide Bibles, New Testaments, tracts, and other items for the people of 
the Confederacy. The church suffered heavy material losses during 
the war, and when hostilities ceased countless churches had to be 
rebuilt or repaired, educational endowments had to be restored, 
clergymen had to be recruited and trained, and organizational ties 
had to be reformed. The task of rebuilding faced Presbyterians in the 


By David L. Smiley* 

"The American Revolution, with its foreign and future conse- 
quences," James Madison declared in 1790, "is a subject of such mag- 
nitude that every circumstance connected with it, more especially 
every one leading to it, is already and will be more and more a matter 
of investigation." For that reason he regarded the proceedings in 
Virginia during the Stamp Act crisis a quarter-century earlier as 
peculiarly significant. Information about those events, he said, was 
"a sort of debt due from her contemporary citizens to their successors." 
He asked elder statesman Edmund Pendleton, therefore, to write out 
his recollections of the Stamp Act resolves of 1765— "by whom and how 
the subject commenced in the Assembly; where the resolutions pro- 
posed by Mr. Henry really originated; what was the sum of the argu- 
ments for and against them, and who were the principal speakers on 
each side." 1 

Madison's interest in 1790 in the background to the Revolution 
was no idle antiquarian speculation. Expressed when Congress was 
debating the question of state debt assumption, and only a few months 
prior to adoption of the Virginia Resolutions on that subject, it was 
an implied recognition of the continuity of constitutional arguments 
in America. As Madison came to realize, there were fundamental 
similarities between the legal defenses employed to justify opposition 
to Acts of Parliament in the Revolutionary generation and those heard 

* Dr. Smiley is professor of history at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem. 
This paper was read at a meeting of the Southern Historical Association in Rich- 
mond, Virginia, November 18, 1965. 

1 Madison to Pendleton, April 4, 1790, in Gaillard Hunt (ed.), The Writings of 
James Madison (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 9 volumes, 1900-1910), VI, 9-10, 
hereinafter cited as Hunt, Writings of James Madison. Compare the opinion of the 
editor of the Times (London) : "The rebels or patriots of 1772 [sic] invoked rights 
and asserted principles which could not fail to be serviceable to any rebels or patriots 
of future times." Noting that the Revolutionaries of 1776 searched diligently through 
Puritan histories seeking the "forms of revolution," he said that "the Seceders of the 
present day may turn to the records of the American Revolution with far greater 
success. . . . We think the Seceding States might appeal with some plausibility in 
defense of their proceedings to the precedents of the Revolutionary War. . . ." 
Times (London, England), May 24, 1861, hereinafter cited as Times (London). 

The South's Constitutional Defenses 257 

under the Constitution in supporting resistance to national legislation. 
Though it would be years before James Madison used constitutional 
contentions with which he had become familiar in 1776, others were 
already renewing the struggle. 

As the timing of Madison's request to Pendleton indicated, the Vir- 
ginia Assembly's response to the Stamp Act in 1765 and to the assump- 
tion of state debts in 1790 offered an example of such continuity. In 
the earlier year Patrick Henry's resolutions marked the prologue to the 
Revolution; twenty-five years later the same man's resolutions, ad- 
dressed to a similar grievance and couched in comparable language, 
sounded the alarm which initiated a new conflict over constitutional 
interpretation and expressed a philosophy which in the nineteenth 
century became characteristically southern. Far from being original 
in their efforts to circumvent a hostile majority, the apologists for 
southern rights from 1790 to 1860 were but adapting a constitutional 
mechanism which had served Americans once before. The intellectual 
preparation and legal vindication of resistance in the War for Ameri- 
can Independence supplied the origins of the Old South's constitu- 
tional rationale. The leaders of the Revolution evolved a set of con- 
stitutional principles which patriots in all parts of the country could 
accept as a means of preserving human liberty, and these same prin- 
ciples were adapted by a sectional minority in defense of states' rights 
and southern institutions, including slavery. This shift in attitudes was 
a significant development in American thought. 

Those impassioned southerners who chose secession in 1860 were 
fully aware of the similarities between their actions and those of the 
Revolutionary patriots. As they saw themselves, they were but fol- 
lowing in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers. A New Orleans editor 
contended that "the Confederate States are acting over again the his- 
tory of the American Revolution of 1776." 2 The South Carolina Con- 
vention of 1860 declared that the South stood "exactly in the same 
position toward the Northern States that our ancestors did toward 
Great Britain," 3 and a delegate to that convention evoked patriotic 
emotions when he shouted that "the tea has been thrown overboard; 
the Revolution of 1860 has begun." 4 Even volunteer versifiers, answer- 

2 Daily Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana), hereinafter cited as Daily Picayune, 
in Frank Moore (ed.), The Rebellion Record (New York: G. P. Putnam and D. Van 
Nostrand, 11 volumes and supplement, 1861-1868), II, 252. 

3 "Address of the People of South Carolina, Assembled in Convention, to the 
People of the Slaveholding States of the United States," in Journal of the Convention 
of the People of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: Gibbes, 1862), 467-476. The quotation 
is on page 468. 

4 Quoted in Alan Barker, The Civil War in America (Garden City, N.Y.: Double- 
day and Company, Inc., 1961), 93. 

258 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ing the call to the colors with poetry, often bad, sang of the resem- 
blances between 1776 and 1860. As one expressed it: 

Yes, call them rebels! 'tis the name 

Their patriot fathers bore, 
And by such deeds they'll hallow it, 

As they have done before. 5 

But for all their proud assumption of the patriots' mantle, the nine- 
teenth century defenders of local autonomy would have strengthened 
their case had they known and followed Madison's injunction to study 
carefully the coming of the American Revolution. Every one of their 
constitutional arguments had its counterpart in the Revolutionary 
quarrel with Britain. Even the editor of the London Times, with an 
ill-concealed malicious glee, noted the comparisons clearly. The North 
had a good case, but it was "surprisingly like the cause of England," 
he said. "By substituting the words 'British Empire' for 'American 
Union' we shall get very nearly the case of George III and his minis- 
ters." Defenders of the Union had not advanced a single argument 
against secession, he asserted, "which could not have been employed 
with equal justice by Lord North." 6 

In spite of the proud southern recognition and the somewhat spite- 
ful English corroboration of the similarities between 1776 and 1860, 
there were basic differences between the two American "secessions" 
and the two civil wars for independence. Beyond the fact that each 
historical event is unique, perhaps the most obvious disparity was 
the difference between the constitutions to which each group appealed. 
The British Constitution and the United States Constitution were alike 
in that each was susceptible to different interpretations so that each 
side in both conflicts could clothe itself in the garments of legality. But 
the nebulous nature of the British Constitution as compared to the 
definite written instrument of 1787 made the tasks of the Revolutionary 
generation more difficult. Though they remained convinced that they 
were preserving ancient English rights granted under a specific and 
long-established Constitution against the perversions of a tyrannical 
King and Parliament, ultimately the 1776 rebels reduced their em- 
phasis upon the Constitution in favor of an equally nebulous doctrine 

6 Daily Picayune, May 26, 1861, quoted in E. Merton Coulter, The Confederate 
States of America, 1861-1865, Volume VII of A History of the South, edited by 
Wendell Holmes Stephenson and E. Merton Coulter (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 
University Press [projected 10 volumes, 1948 — ], 1950), 60. 

6 Times (London), May 24, 1861. For a dissenting view of the two rebellions, see 
George Fitzhugh, "The Revolutions of 1776 and 1861 Contrasted," in Southern 
Literary Messenger, XXXVII (November and December, 1863), 718-726. 

The South's Constitutional Defenses 259 

of "natural rights" as their primary defense. There were other im- 
portant differences. Changes in communications, in values, and in 
personalities contributed unique characteristics to each event. 

Still, stripped of their superficial trappings, the two sets of Ameri- 
can rebels gave considerable substance to the observations of the 
London editor. The constitutional bases of both civil wars were argu- 
ments which displayed similar verbiage if not always exactly com- 
parable meanings. Each contended that legitimate governments were 
compacts between principals; that certain legislation had violated 
fundamental charters— the products of compact agreements— and was 
therefore null and void; that local governments were supreme in their 
political spheres and could judge the actions of the general govern- 
ment in the light of the fundamental law; and that any change in the 
essentially federal nature of government was destructive of human 
liberty. Considered broadly, even the grievances voiced in the two 
rebellions— tariff s or commercial regulation, taxation, home rule and in- 
dividual rights, and the control of western territory— demonstrated a 
startling similarity. Constitutional theorists and publicists in both 
camps, confronted with a hostile majority whether in the British 
Parliament or in the United States Congress and the Electoral College, 
fell back upon arguments and devices which had much in common. 

Each group began with the compact theory of government. The 
colonials, utilizing European political writers such as John Milton 
and John Locke, James Harrington and Algernon Sidney, had long 
asserted the contractual nature of the state. To the Puritans it was 
but the extension of covenant Calvinism into the secular sphere. "It 
is of the nature and essence of every society," John Winthrop declared, 
"to be knitt together by some Covenant, either expressed or implyed." 7 
Similar views appeared in the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental 
Orders of Connecticut, and in the frontier charters such as that of 
Watauga. Patrick Henry, in his argument— or that of his biographers— 
in the Parson's Cause, extended the compact idea to include the 
colony's connection with Britain. 8 James Otis declared that "the form 
and mode of government is to be settled by compact," and Samuel 
Adams was sure that "whatever Government in general may be 
founded in, Ours was manifestly founded in Compact." 9 In 1776 the 

7 Quoted in Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Win- 
throp (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1958), 93. 

8 William Wirt, The Life of Patrick Henry (Hartford, Connecticut: S. Andrus 
and Son [Tenth Edition], 1850), 46-47. 

9 James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston: n.p. 
[Third Edition, Corrected], 1766), 22; this pamphlet is reprinted in Charles F. 
Mullett, "Some Political Writings of James Otis," University of Missouri Studies, 
IV (July 1, 1929), 45-101. Harry A. Cushing (ed.), The Writings of Samuel Adams 
(New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 4 volumes, 1904-1908), I, 29, hereinafter cited as 
Cushing, Writings of Samuel Adams. 

260 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Continental Congress was therefore on familiar ground when it de- 
clared that governments were instituted among men, "deriving their 
just powers from the consent of the governed." 10 

The compact theory of government was a part of the Americans' 
heritage from the eighteenth century, and they continued it in the 
process by which the state conventions ratified the Constitution of 
1787. That method of approval, together with the fact that the Con- 
stitution itself established a government partly national and partly 
federal, made the compact idea a fundamental defense in later oppo- 
sition to national legislation. "By compact under the style and title of 
a Constitution for the United States," ran Jefferson's classic statement 
in 1798, "they constituted a general government for special pur- 
poses. ... To this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an 
integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party." n 

In Jefferson's verbal footsteps followed other publicists who found 
acts of national legislation distasteful. Defined as an agreement be- 
tween coeval states united in a league or confederation, the phrase 
"compact theory" rolled easily off the tongues of southern leaders. In 
1831 John C. Calhoun declared that "the Constitution of the United 
States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party." 12 And in 
a Senate speech in 1860 Jefferson Davis demonstrated the tenacity of 
the idea: "the States were the grantors," he said; "they made the com- 
pact; they gave the Federal agent its powers." 13 So close were the 
theoretical connections between the two revolutions that in 1798 Jef- 
ferson could assert that he had not departed from the principles he 
followed in 1775, and in 1831 Calhoun could claim that he was true to 
the republican spirit of 1798. 14 

If the compact idea gave continuity to a set of constitutional argu- 
ments, in other aspects of the minority's defenses the nineteenth cen- 

10 Journals of the Continental Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 
34 volumes, 1904-1937), V, 510, hereinafter cited as Journals of the Continental 
Congress. See Andrew C. McLaughlin, "Social Compact and Constitutional Con- 
struction," American Historical Review, V (April, 1900), 467-490, for an argument 
that the idea of compact underwent a change in meaning between 1776 and 1860. 

11 "The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798," in Saul K. Padover, The Complete Jefferson 
(New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1943), 128-129. 

12 Richard K. Cralle (ed.), The Works of John C. Calhoun (New York: Appleton, 
6 volumes, 1853-1855), VI, 60, hereinafter cited as Cralle, Works of Calhoun. See 
also Calhoun's statement in the South Carolina Exposition, quoted in Cralle, Works 
of Calhoun, VI, 36. 

"Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (New York: 
Appleton, 2 volumes, 1881), I, 585, hereinafter cited as Davis, Rise and Fall. 

"Jefferson to Samuel Smith, August 22, 1798, in Henry Augustine Washington 
(ed.), The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington: Taylor & Maury, 9 volumes, 
1853-1854), IV, 254; Calhoun to Christopher Van Deventer, August 5, 1831, in J. 
Franklin Jameson (ed.), Correspondence of John C. Calhoun (Washington: Govern- 
ment Printing Office [Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the 
Year 1899, Volume II], 1899), 296. 

The South's Constitutional Defenses 261 

tury drew heavily upon Revolutionary pamphleteers. Upon the pre- 
mise of the compact theory, expanded to include the local govern- 
ment's relationship to the general, both groups defined their union as a 
federal one of political members possessing certain features of sov- 
ereignty. Federalism, the idea that there were two levels of govern- 
ment, one general and the other local, lay at the roots of Colonial 
resistance to Parliament. However real may have been the economic 
pressures, the heady content of the intellectual currents sweeping out 
of Enlightenment Europe, or the popular demands for social change, 
Colonial American spokesmen were careful to express their opposition 
to British legislation in constitutional and federal terms. 15 

The defenders of Colonial rights asserted that their charters granted 
them legislative supremacy over their internal matters. "By this Char- 
ter," said Samuel Adams in Massachusetts, "we have an exclusive 
Right to make Laws for our own internal Government and Taxation." 
Distance rendered it impractical for Americans to be represented in 
Parliament, he continued, speculating that it was "very probable that 
all subordinate legislative powers in America, were constituted upon 
the Apprehension of this Impracticability." 16 The American govern- 
ments, Massachusetts' Governor Francis Bernard confirmed, "claim to 
be perfect states, not otherwise dependent upon Great Britain than by 
having the same king." 17 Rhode Island's Governor Stephen Hopkins, 
defining the Empire as a federal union, declared that "each of the 
colonies hath a legislature within itself, to take care of its Interests . . . 
yet there are things of a more general nature, quite out of reach of 
these particular legislatures, which is necessary should be regulated, 
ordered, and governed." 18 

Colonial opposition to imperial taxation brought forth only an 
immediate manifestation of a prior belief in a federal Empire. The 
Massachusetts House of Representatives, in a debate with Governor 

15 Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1953), Chapter III. In Chapter IV Professor Boorstin argues, in 
general terms, the continuity of constitutional thought between the Revolution and the 
Confederacy. See also Thad W. Tate, "The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: 
Britain's Challenge to Virginia's Ruling Class, 1763-1776," William and Mary 
Quarterly, XIX (July, 1962), 323-343, for an argument that constitutional issues 
combined with a threat to Virginia's power structure brought on revolution — a thesis 
which might apply with equal force to the Confederates. Additional interpretive 
matter on this point is in R. G. Adams, Political Ideas of the American Revolution 
(New York: Facsimile Library, 1939) and Charles F. Mullett, Fundamental Law 
and the American Revolution, 1760-1776 (New York: Columbia University Press, 
1933) . 

16 Cushing, Writings of Samuel Adams, I, 29. 

"Quoted in Claude H. Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence (Boston: 
Houghton Mifflin, 1922), 218. 

"Quoted in Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution 
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1948), 69-70. 

262 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Bernard over the Stamp Act, asserted "that the charter of this province 
invests the General Assembly with the power of making laws for its 
internal government and taxation"— obviously taking its language from 
Samuel Adams. 19 Perhaps the clearest Colonial statement of federalism 
appeared in the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental 
Congress. In an appeal based upon "the immutable laws of nature, 
the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or 
compacts," they petitioned for redress of grievances "as Englishmen 
their ancestors in like cases have usually done." They declared that the 
foundation of English liberty was the right of popular participation 
in government. Since they could not properly be represented in the 
British Parliament, they asserted their right to a "free and exclusive 
power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where 
their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of 
taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their 
sovereign, in such manner as has heretofore been used and accus- 
tomed." But at the same time they would "cheerfully consent" to Par- 
liamentary regulation of external commerce. In these resolutions the 
Continental Congress explicitly stated its view of the Empire as a 
federal, rather than a unitary, political organization. 20 

The states' rights dogma, characteristically a fundamental element 
in the Old South' s constitutional defenses, thus had roots in Revolu- 
tionary thought. Though most southern spokesmen went no further 
back than the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a few recognized the 
Colonial origins of American federalism. Governor Littleton W. Taze- 
well of Virginia was one who did. "In their colonial state, they con- 
stituted several distinct Societies, whose affairs were regulated by 
governments absolutely independent of each other," he said. "In 
throwing off their former governments they did not dissolve their 
former associations— the Societies remained, after the governments 
were no more." The Declaration of Independence, Tazewell declared, 
"far from proclaiming that they were One People or One Nation, in 
its own terms declared them to be free and Independent States/ 


19 Alden Bradford (ed.), Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts from 1765 to 
1775 (Boston: Russell and Gardner, 1818), 45, quoted in Edmund S. Morgan and 
Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution (Chapel Hill: 
University of North Carolina Press, 1953), 101, hereinafter cited as Morgan, Stamp 
Act Crisis. 

20 Journals of the Continental Congress, I, 67-69. For a discussion of the impli- 
cations of the Declaration and Resolves, see Charles H. Mcllwain, The American 
Revolution: A Constitutional Interpretation (New York: Macmillan Company, 1923; 
and Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1958), 114-137. 

a Littleton W. Tazewell, A Review of the Proclamation of President Jackson of 
the 10th of December, 1832 (Norfolk, Virginia: J. D. Ghiselin, 1888), 53. See also 
Cralle, Works of Calhoun, I, 188-193. 

The South's Constitutional Defenses 263 

Other opponents of national power also called upon the pre-Revolu- 
tionary past to justify their present contentions. James Madison, a 
youthful participant in the Revolution, saw the continuity between 
Colonial theory and states' rights under the Constitution. "The funda- 
mental principle of the Revolution was, that the Colonies were co- 
ordinate members with each other and with Great Britain, of an Em- 
pire united by a common executive sovereign, but not united by any 
common legislative sovereign," he said in 1800. "The legislative power 
was maintained to be as complete in each American Parliament, as 
in the British Parliament. ... A denial of these principles by Great 
Britain, and the assertion of them by America," Madison concluded, 
"produced the Revolution." 22 In 1844 Robert Barnwell Rhett praised 
the sense of independence "which prompted our ancestors to enter 
the field in 1776," and said the same spirit would make southerners 
"warm now, and watchful, to resent every assault upon the province 
of our local government and from whatever quarter it may come." 23 

Building upon the conviction that local governments were supreme 
in their own domains, the next step in the minority's defense was to 
assert the limited nature of the general government. In placing limi- 
tations upon the legislative powers of their unions, both groups urged 
a strict construction of their constitutions. The claim that the British 
constitution put limits upon the powers of Parliament appeared fre- 
quently in the quarrel with the mother country. It was heard in Vir- 
ginia in 1753, when the Assembly declared that "the Rights of the 
Subject are so secured by Law, that they cannot be deprived of the 
least Part of their Property, but by their own Consent: Upon this 
excellent Principle is our Constitution founded." 24 In Massachusetts 
Samuel Adams could become quite academic in expounding the idea 
of constitutional limitations. "If then according to Lord Coke, Magna 
Charta is declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws 
and liberties of the people, and Vatel is right in his opinion, that the 
supreme legislature cannot change the constitution," he wrote, "I think 
it follows, whether Lord Coke has expressly asserted it or not, that 
an act of Parliament made against Magna Charta in violation of its 
essential parts, is void." 25 

22 Hunt, Writings of James Madison, VI, 373. 

23 Mercury (Charleston, S.C.), August 1, 1844, quoted in William R. Taylor, 
Cavalier and Yankee (New York: George Braziller, 1961), 265. In "The Spirit of 
76," 262-270, Professor Taylor discusses efforts of South Carolinians to relate them- 
selves to the Revolutionary patriots. 

24 Quoted in David J. Mays, Edmund Pendleton, 1721-1803 (Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press, 2 volumes, 1952), I, 76, hereinafter cited as Mays, Edmund 

85 Cushing, Writings of Samuel Adams, II, 325-326. 

264 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Other Colonial leaders agreed that the British Constitution placed 
limits upon Parliament and thereby substantiated their claims to Eng- 
lish political rights. John Rutledge of South Carolina assured the First 
Continential Congress that "our claims, I think, are well founded on 
the British Constitution/' And to the same gathering Joseph Galloway 
of Pennsylvania said that he had sought the basis of American rights 
"in the constitution of the English government, and there found them. 
We may draw them from this source securely/' 26 

British taxation of their American colonies brought forth the most 
vigorous appeals to the Constitution. The Virginia Assembly attacked 
the Stamp Act as contrary to a "fundamental principle of the British 
Constitution, without which Freedom can no Where exist/' 27 The 
Massachusetts House of Representatives went even further. "It by no 
means appertains to us to presume to adjust the boundaries of the 
power of Parliament; but boundaries there undoubtedly are," its mem- 
bers declared. "We beg leave just to observe that the charter of this 
province invests the General Assembly with the power of making laws 
for its internal government and taxation, and that this charter has 
never yet been forfeited/' 28 In a protest to the Townshend Acts the 
Massachusetts House resolved that "In all free states, the constitution 
is fixed; it is from thence, that the legislative derives its authority; 
therefore it cannot change the constitution without destroying its own 
foundation." 29 Samuel Adams defined the Townshend duties as "In- 
fringements of their natural and constitutional Rights," and James 
Otis expressed the opinion that "there are Limits, beyond which if 
Parliaments go, their Acts bind not." 30 

With these constitutional appeals as precedents, after 1789 it was 
easy for the opponents of national legislation to continue the tradition. 
In 1790 the Virginia delegates could "find no clause in the constitution 
authorizing Congress to assume the debts of the states," and a decade 
later asserted "the authority of constitutions over governments, and 
. . . the sovereignty of the people over constitutions." 31 Thomas Jef- 

26 Quoted in Mays, Edmund Pendleton, I, 287-288. See also Andrew C. McLaughlin, 
The Foundations of American Constitutionalism (New York: New York University 
Press, 1932), 140-142, hereinafter cited as McLaughlin, Foundations of American 

27 Mays, Edmund Pendleton, I, 158. 

28 Quoted in Morgan, Stamp Act Crisis, 101. 

29 Massachusetts House to the Earl of Shelburne, January 15, 1768, in Alden 
Bradford (ed.), Massachusetts State Papers, reprinted in Henry S. Commager, 
Documents of American History (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts [Fourth Edi- 
tion], 1948), 65, hereinafter cited as Commager, Documents, as a convenient source 
for pertinent materials. 

80 Cushing, Writings of Samuel Adams, I, 184-185, reprinted in Commager, Docu- 
ments, 66; Otis quoted in Morgan, Stamp Act Crisis, 140. 
31 "Virginia Resolutions on Debt Assumption," in W. W. Hening (ed.), Statutes at 

The South's Constitutional Defenses 265 

ferson regarded it as axiomatic that acts of the general government not 
specifically granted in the constitution were without authority. 32 Into 
the nineteenth century the minority, whether in New England after 
1801 or later in the South, insisted upon retaining the letter of the 
Constitution as the preserver of their liberties. John C. Calhoun, who 
had learned his constitutional theory in Tapping Reeve's law school 
in Litchfield, Connecticut, in the days of Federalist eclipse, based 
his complicated minority-defense mechanism upon the Constitution, 
which he declared had established a federal union of sovereign en- 
tities. To prevent the dread alternatives of centralization or disunion, 
he set himself the objective "that the government of the United States 
should be restored to its federal character. Nothing short of a perfect 
restoration," he said, "as it came from the hands of its framers, can 
avert them/' 33 After Calhoun many others, including Jefferson Davis 
and Alexander H. Stephens, employed similar arguments. Their think- 
ing, however, was original not so much in their basic premises as in 
their adaptation of a well-defined Revolutionary constitutional inter- 
pretation to meet their contemporary needs. 34 

In their appeal to the Constitution the colonials anticipated an idea 
later celebrated as the doctrine of state interposition. In 1771 Samuel 
Cooper said of the people of Boston that "the greater Part have a 
settled persuasion . . . that our Parliament here ought to come between 
the sovereign and the American subject, just in the same Manner that 
the British Parliament does with respect to the British subject. . . ." 35 
Nineteen years later, when the Virginia delegates opposed the assump- 
tion of state debts, they declared themselves the "guardians then of 
the rights and interests of their constituents, as sentinels placed by 
them over the ministers of the federal government, to shield it from 
their encroachments." Twenty-seven years later, when the Virginians 
objected to the Alien and Sedition Acts, they declared that the states 
"have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the 

Large of Virginia (Richmond: Printed for the editor at Franklin Press, 13 volumes, 
1819-1823), XIII, 238, hereinafter cited as Hening, Statutes. The resolutions also 
appear in Commager, Documents, 155. The "Virginia Report of 1800," is in Hunt, 
Writings of James Madison, VI, 352. 

32 Dumas Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty, Volume III of Jefferson and 
His Time (Boston: Little, Brown [projected multivolume work, 1948 — ], 1962), 
403-404, hereinafter cited as Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty. 

33 Margaret L. Coit, John C. Calhoun, American Portrait (Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin, 1950), 42. The quotation is in Cralle, Works of Calhoun, I, 381. For a study of 
differences between Madison's and Calhoun's concepts of the Union, see Edward S. 
Corwin, "National Power and State Interposition, 1787-1861," Michigan Law Review, 
X (May, 1912), 535-551. 

34 Davis, Rise and Fall; Alexander H. Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late 
War Between the States (Philadelphia: National Publishing Co., 2 volumes, 1868). 

35 Samuel Cooper to Thomas Pownall, November 14, 1771, in Frederick Tuckerman 
(ed.), "Letters of Samuel Cooper to Thomas Pownall, 1769-1777," American Historical 
Review, VIII (January, 1903), 325. 

266 The North Carolina Historical Review 

progress of the evil. . . ." 36 Under the Constitution the defense ma- 
neuver of state interposition to protect the citizens from outside en- 
croachments was an important aspect of the South's particularistic 
philosophy, but it had roots in the earlier debate with Britain. 

Along with interposition went the claim that a state had the power 
to judge the constitutionality of national legislation and to nullify 
within its borders measures which a strict reading of the fundamental 
law did not justify. Usually regarded as having its beginnings in the 
South Carolina Nullification Convention of 1832, or in Calhoun's 
Exposition of 1828, or even in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, the 
doctrine of nullification had its counterpart in the prologue to the 
Revolution. However often the colonials may have nullified commer- 
cial measures by smuggling, it was the Stamp Act which brought from 
them statements of the constitutional idea of nullification. 

The Stamp Act was the first British effort to tax the colonists di- 
rectly, so it was an open challenge to American constitutional theories. 
Though Colonial agents and assemblies petitioned against the meas- 
ure, they had no vote in Parliament. Subjected to the legislation of 
an unfriendly majority, they fell back upon constitutional defenses. 
Patrick Henry, a newcomer to the Virginia House of Burgesses, intro- 
duced a set of resolutions designed to nullify the act within the pro- 
vince. The right of the people to determine their own taxes, he said, 
"is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distin- 
guishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient 
constitution cannot exist." According to tradition, one of his resolu- 
tions included the assertion that the Virginians were "not bound to 
yield obedience" to an unconstitutional law. 37 

Colonial response to Henry's resolutions was important not only in 
the coming of the Revolution but also in later constitutional defenses. 
Regardless of what actually happened in the Virginia House in May, 
1765— and the truth may never be known— the doctrine of nullification 
spread rapidly in newspaper accounts. Upon publication of the Vir- 
ginia "Resolves," groups in other colonies endorsed them and issued 
statements often bolder in tone. The Sons of Liberty in Portsmouth, 
New Hampshire, for example, declared that the Stamp Act violated 
fundamental rights of British subjects and was "Therefore void of all 
Lawfull Authority, so that depending upon Meer Force it may Law- 

86 "Virginia Resolutions on Debt Assumption," in Hening, Statutes, XIII, 238; 
"Virginia Resolutions of 1798," in Hunt, Writings of James Madison, VI, 326, 
and reprinted in Commager, Documents, 182-183. See also the South Carolina Ex- 
position, in Cralle, Works of Calhoun, VI, 55-57. 

37 "Virginia Stamp Act Resolves," in Morgan, Stamp Act Crisis, 91-92, and also in 
Commager, Documents, 56. For confusion over the resolves, see Morgan, Stamp Act 
Crisis, 89-94. 


The South's Constitutional Defenses 267 

fully be oppos'd by Force." 38 The Northampton County Court in 
Virginia asserted that "the said act did not bind, affect or concern the 
inhabitants of this colony, in as much as they conceive the same to be 
unconstitutional. . . ." 39 The Rhode Island Assembly appealed for re 
sistance to the Act and directed the colony's officials to ignore it. 
John Adams in Massachusetts defined the Act as "utterly void, and of 
no binding Force upon us." 41 With their leaders expressing such views, 
Colonial mob violence effectively nullified the offending Act. Non- 
importation agreements and the Continental Association intended 
similar treatment for other British imperial actions. 

From these beginnings the doctrine of nullification emerged as a 
weapon of the minority under the Constitution. As Madison's 1790 
letter to Edmund Pendleton implied, there was a close theoretical 
relationship between Patrick Henry's resolutions on the Stamp Act 
and his remarks on the assumption of state debts. A few years later, 
when the Alien and Sedition Acts extended the powers of the federal 
judiciary to include common law jurisdiction in criminal cases, Thomas 
Jefferson wanted his state to declare that the "acts are, and were ab 
initio, null, void, and of no force or effect." The 1799 Kentucky 
Resolutions made it explicit that the states "being sovereign and in- 
dependent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction," 
and that a "nullification" of the offending measures "is the rightful 
remedy." It was on the basis of these precedents, reaching back to 
pre-Revolutionary ideas, that John C. Calhoun recommended that 
South Carolina could constitutionally nullify a tariff measure. 42 

Thus, from compact theory and strict construction to nullification 
and secession, there were close similarities between the constitutional 
defenses of both the Revolutionary generation and the planter-politi- 
cians of the Old South. In both cases, when men judged the power at 
the center to be too great, they declared the compact to be broken. 
And in each instance they employed similar devices to correct the 
errors they decried. Each, acting upon constitutional premises, sought 
to block the majority by a literal interpretation of the fundamental 
law; each solemnly declared "unconstitutional" legislation to be null 
and void. When their petitions failed to bring redress, each turned to 
secession and a movement for independence as the means of preserv- 

38 Quoted in Morgan, Stamp Act Crisis, 203. 

39 Quoted in McLaughlin, Foundations of American Constitutionalism, 126n, and in 
Commager, Documents, 59. 

40 Morgan, Stamp Act Crisis, 98-99. 

41 Morgan, Stamp Act Crisis, 140. 

42 Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty, 407; Cralle, Works of Calhoun, 
VI, 159. See also Chauncey S. Boucher, The Nullification Controversy in South 
Carolina (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916), 33, 105-106. 

268 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ing— or of restoring— constitutional liberties. Given the opportunity to 
draw up a frame of government according to their own standards, each 
group— one in the Articles of Confederation of 1781 and the other in 
the Confederate Constitution of 1861— closely copied what it imagined 
or desired the original constitution to be. 

The close agreement between the two sets of constitutional defenses 
did not mean that the nineteenth-century defenders of the plantation 
and slavery possessed more patriotism or longer memories than did 
their northern opponents. It did suggest that they, like their eigh- 
teenth-century predecessors, were in a minority. It meant that in the 
Anglo-Saxon tradition there had developed an orthodox process by 
which a minority could protect itself: 43 Any group of leaders, powerful 
in its own region but a minority in the larger political unit, immedi- 
ately adopted a program to restrict the majority's actions. It contained 
the ideas of local sovereignty, or federalism; strict construction of the 
Constitution which bound the union together; the doctrines of sentinel- 
ship and interposition; nullification; and secession. Against these 
minority defenses the majority in both cases also followed a recog- 
nizable pattern of action: national sovereignty, loose construction of 
the Constitution, and the coercion of rebellious or dissident elements. 

There were other reasons, apart from the Anglo-Saxon tradition of 
constitutionalism, which lay behind the southern emulation of Revolu- 
tionary opinions. The rural nature of the planters' society, and their 
insistence upon clinging to a Colonial economy and an outdated labor 
system, made them sensitive to outside criticisms. Outstripped in the 
population race and with the frontier closed by what they regarded 
as "natural limits" to slavery expansion, 44 they emphasized the federal 
aspects of the Union as a means of preserving their regional way of 
life. But more important was a continuity of leadership which served 
as a bridge between the two American rebellions. The same men- 
Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, among others- 
appeared as contributors in the formulation of both constitutional 
defenses. Memories of the methods of one revolutionary era served as 
guideposts for another, and subsequent southern leaders adopted the 
weapons and philosophy of government of an older generation. In 
1800, when Madison attacked the claim that a law could be "binding 
on these States as one society" as a doctrine "evidently repugnant to 
the fundamental principle of the Revolution," 45 he was but trans- 

43 See John C. Calhoun, Address to the People of South Carolina, in Cralle, Works 
of Calhoun, VI, 136, 139, for evidences of minority sentiment. For a discussion of the 
Anglo-Saxon tradition of rebellion, see Roy F. Nichols, "1461-1861: The American 
Civil War in Perspective," Journal of Southern History, XVI (May, 1950), 143-160. 

44 Charles W. Ramsdell, "The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," Mississippi 
Valley Historical Review, XVI (September, 1929), 151-171. 

46 Hunt, Writings of James Madison, VI, 374. 

The South's Constitutional Defenses 269 

mitting a minority constitutional defense from the Revolutionary 
generation to its successors. 


CRISIS, 1929-1932 

By Joseph L. Morrison* 

The bitterness of the Alfred E. Smith-Herbert Hoover presidential 
campaign and Hoover's capture of North Carolina in 1928 made in- 
evitable a Tar Heel political showdown in 1930. It was then that 
Furnifold M. Simmons, in the United States Senate since 1901 and 
a party man of strictest sect, would have to defend his desertion of 
the Al Smith candidacy. The actual confrontation came in a Demo- 
cratic primary contest between Simmons and Josiah W. Bailey, his 
one-time follower, who had led the state's pro-Smith effort. Between 
the two, Editor Josephus Daniels of the Raleigh News and Observer 
found little to choose. He had lambasted Simmons in 1909 for cham- 
pioning the Payne-Aldrich Tariff but had appreciated the way Sim- 
mons, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had gone down 
the line for President Woodrow Wilson. True, Simmons had been 
the patron of the unfortunate Revenue Commissioner, A. D. Watts, 
but Simmons had also pleased Daniels latterly by voting for govern- 
ment ownership and operation of Muscle Shoals. The Bailey-Daniels 
relationship was somewhat similar, hostility before and conciliation 
during the Wilson days. What finally inclined Daniels to Simmons 
was not the past but the future of the Democratic party; like Simmons, 
Daniels insisted that the national leadership of Al Smith and John J. 
Raskob must go. Simmons had not committed the ultimate treason 
of personally voting for Herbert Hoover, so the Senator had returned 
to the Democratic party fold in 1929 along with uncounted thou- 
sands of other southerners. 

"In spite of our differences over regularity in 1928, I supported 
Simmons for re-election in 1930," Josephus Daniels recalled. "I felt 
that for one lapse he ought not to be repudiated by the party he had 

* Dr. Morrison is professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. This paper was read at a meeting of the Watauga Club in Raleigh, 
November 15, 1966. 

The "Tar Heel Editor/' 1929-1932 271 

served so long and so well." * As the primary election day approached, 
Daniels' attitude was summarized in an editorial entitled "The Ides 
of November," in which he warned that it was more important that 
a Democrat be elected in November than which Democrat be pre- 
ferred in June. 2 Daniels wrote H. E. C. Bryant: "Though I disagree 
with both of them in some respects, I can support either in a general 
election. Like you, 1 had no druthers/" 3 What really concerned 
Daniels was the future of his state's Democratic party in the light of 
the rancor that had lingered after the Smith-Hoover campaign. Sim- 
mons was denounced as a traitor on the one hand but championed by 
others who insisted that he should not be punished for repudiating 
a wet Roman Catholic Tammanyite like Al Smith. In the course of the 
campaign Daniels questioned one of the knowledgeable party ob- 
servers, who informed him that Bailey was then leading Simmons. It 
was not like the ebullient editor to do so, but Daniels then turned 
wordlessly away from Raleigh's strategic corner of Fayetteville and 
Martin Streets. 4 Simmons' defeat came as no great surprise, to be 
sure, and the huge majority rolled up against him bore witness, partly, 
to the premium then placed on party regularity. Even more likely, it 
testified to Simmons' "guilt by association" with President Hoover, 
who was now widely blamed for the nationwide depression. 

In writing sympathetically to Simmons' campaign manager, Daniels 
tried to explain his own political impotence. "All my life I have been 
an anti-machine Democrat," he wrote, "even when I was in perfect 
accord with what the machine was doing. And lacking any organized 
backing, I have not been able to do many things that I wished to do." 5 
To a seasoned politician like his former fellow Cabinet member, A. S. 
Burleson, however, Daniels got down to cases. First off, he explained 
that Simmons had been physically unable to make a campaign and 
did not speak in his own behalf; furthermore, "most of his old strong 
leaders deserted him and he had to depend upon amateurs so that he 
never had a chance." 6 Daniels knew full well that Simmons, as incum- 
bent, had had to bear the brunt of much rural discontent with the 
Hoover administration in general and with the agricultural depression 
in particular. When Daniels closed Democratic ranks with Bailey, 

^osephus Daniels, "Life Begins at Seventy," unpublished manuscript, Jonathan 
Daniels Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as Daniels, "Life Begins at Seventy." 

2 "Ides of November," News and Observer (Raleigh), June 4, 1930, hereinafter 
cited as News and Observer. 

3 Daniels to H. E. C. Bryant, June 7, 1930, Josephus Daniels Papers, Manuscripts 
Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C, hereinafter cited as Daniels Papers. 

* Author's interview with John W. Umstead, Jr., Chapel Hill, December 7, 1962. 

6 Daniels to Frank A. Hampton, June 26, 1930, Daniels Papers. 

6 Daniels to Burleson, October 16, 1930, Daniels Papers. 

272 The North Carolina Historical Review 

preparing for the "Ides of November," he addressed him as "Dear 
Will" and outlined the campaign issues he thought the other should 
stress. Bailey had written Daniels a similar "unity" letter in 1928, 
promising to attack the Republicans for venturing to question Daniels' 
record as Secretary of the Navy. 7 

To Daniels' mind a much more agreeable election contest took 
place that year when a replacement had to be found for Harry Wood- 
burn Chase as president of the University of North Carolina. Early 
the previous year, on February 4, 1929, the News and Observer pub- 
lished a rumor that President Chase might resign, a report that caused 
Daniels, as a prominent university trustee, considerable embarrass- 
ment. 8 He had known of the possibility but engaged to publish 
nothing; apparently reporter Ben Dixon MacNeill came upon the 
news independently. By February 7, in response to a friend's query, 
Daniels was already writing, "I have the highest opinion of Frank 
Graham. I like his spirit." 9 The next month the editor made a speech 
of introduction for Professor William E. Dodd, whp was addressing a 
session of the North Carolina Conference for Social Welfare. The 
conference president, reelected at that time, was Professor Frank 
Porter Graham. Daniels wrote his regrets to Graham for not being of 
more service during the 1929 conference which was held during the 
strenuous days of the General Assembly. As to the 1929 legislature, 
Daniels advised Graham that they ought to congratulate themselves 
on having gotten a tolerably good Workmen's Compensation Act. 10 In 
editorially congratulating the legislature the next day, Daniels added 
mention of the secret ballot law: "The big thing is that the era of 
static in human welfare and in ballot reform has been given a decent 
burial in North Carolina." n 

The conference headed by Frank Graham was begun in 1912 and 
served as the vanguard of North Carolina's socially conscious leader- 
ship. It responded to the challenge of industrial unrest in its session 
of 1930, following upon the killings in the textile strikes at Gastonia 
and at Marion which had made worldwide newspaper headlines. 
Frank Graham, whom some friends were advancing for the next presi- 

7 Daniels to Bailey, September 13, 1930; Bailey to Daniels, April 25, 1928, Daniels 
Papers. On the Bailey- Simmons campaign, see Elmer L. Puryear, Democratic Party 
Dissension in North Carolina, 1928-1936 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina 
Press [Volume 44 of James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science], 1962), 
21-46, hereinafter cited as Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension. 

*News and Observer, February 4, 1929; on Daniels' embarrassment and MacNeill's 
innocence, author's interview with Edwin Gill, Raleigh, March 20, 1963, hereinafter 
cited as Gill interview. 

9 Daniels to Arnold A. McKay, February 7, 1929, Daniels Papers. 

10 Daniels to Graham, March 9, 1929, Daniels Papers. 

11 News and Observer, March 10, 1929. 

The "Tar Heel Editor," 1929-1932 273 

dent of the university, wrote the manifesto 12 signed by more than 
four hundred prominent Tar Heels, a manifesto looked upon with 
horror by many conservatives of the time. The statement held for 
nothing more subversive than ( 1 ) reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights 
without need of anything resembling a criminal syndicalism bill; and 
(2) social adjustments including a reduction of the sixty-hour work 
week, gradual abolition of night work for women and young people, 
amelioration of the limited state child labor law, plus supervision and 
enforcement of the aforementioned code. The publication of the 
manifesto made headlines, and so did its immediate support by Jose- 
phus Daniels in a two-column editorial on February 18, 1930. He 
wrote, in part: 

Even though there may be dissent from those called "radicals," meaning 
those who are in such a big hurry for reforms they are tempted to dig up 
more snakes than they kill by their methods, and "conservatives," meaning 
those who act as if the great textile industry was still located in the woods 
and was not affected with a public interest, the great liberal, common- 
sense, forward-looking public will rejoice that these four hundred have 
pointed the way to sensible and practicable reforms, just alike to labor 
and capital. 13 

Within a week of the Graham-authored manifesto came the official 
resignation of President Chase 14 and the appointment of a trustees' 
committee (Daniels was not a member) to bring forward names of 
possible successors. Graham trailed on the first ballot taken at Chapel 
Hill June 9, 1930, but when he forged ahead and finally won election 
on the fourth ballot, Josephus Daniels successfully moved that the 
election be made unanimous. 15 Graham's real reluctance to take the 
position was worn down by the pleas of leading trustees like Governor 
O. Max Gardner, Federal Judge John J. Parker, and Josephus Daniels, 
who confided to him the crisis the university was then facing. 16 On 
June 10 Daniels wrote to his son Jonathan, then on the editorial staff 
of Fortune in New York, of "the two big elections in these latter days," 
the Bailey-Simmons race for United States senator and the competition 
for the university presidency. Of Graham's reluctance Daniels said, "I 
believe it is the only time I ever truly saw the office seek the man and 

12 Author's interview with Frank P. Graham, Chapel Hill, April 7, 1963, hereinafter 
cited as Graham interview; release of the manifesto, News and Observer, February 
16, 1930; text of the manifesto in Frank P. Graham file, North Carolina Collection, 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

13 News and Observer, February 18, 1930. 
u News and Observer, February 21, 1930. 

"Minutes of the Board of Trustees, University of North Carolina, June 9, 1930, 
University Archives, Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
16 Graham interview. 

274 The North Carolina Historical Review 

have to throw him down and make him take it." 17 The next day, when 
he wrote a warm letter of support to President Graham, Daniels also 
sent a letter of congratulations to Graham's father. 18 

When the fellow-trustees, Editor Daniels and Judge Parker, ex- 
pressed unanimity in June, they were again together after the political 
fight which led in the previous month to the defeat of Judge Parker's 
nomination to the United States Supreme Court. 19 A perennially un- 
successful Tar Heel Republican candidate, Parker had lost a campaign 
for governor in 1920 and had been appointed to the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in 1925. Josephus Daniels had even recommended 
an honorary LL.D. for Judge Parker in 1927, explaining to the univer- 
sity's President Chase, "I always feel that the University in case of 
the occasional North Carolina Republican who makes good, should be 
careful to render as much honor as to the member of the dominant 
party. "Particularly so," he joked, "when he is safely immured on the 
bench where he can do the Democrats no harm." 20 Like other Demo- 
cratic leaders in the state, Daniels preferred Chief Justice Walter P. 
Stacy for the Supreme Court vacancy, but readily agreed on Parker's 
acceptability when President Hoover nominated him on March 21, 

What at first appeared a routine confirmation ran into trouble when 
opposition developed in two important political quarters, the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor and the National Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Colored People. Judge Parker had offended the AFL 
by upholding a "yellow dog" labor contract and the NAACP by avow- 
ing during the 1920 campaign that the "lily white" Republican party 
did not want Negro votes. Daniels still said nothing publicly. But 
when a letter from a Tar Heel Republican to one of President Hoo- 
ver's secretaries was published urging Judge Parker's nomination in 
the interest of political expediency, Daniels broke his silence and in 
successive editorials the first three days of May, 1930, openly op- 
posed Parker's confirmation. The dramatic roll call in the United 
States Senate May 7 resulted in the refusal to confirm, after which 
Daniels editorialized that it all betokened a liberal challenge to the 
Republican administration. He spoke also, however, "of the deep 
personal sympathy for an upright man subjected to the humiliation 
he must have felt during the course of the prolonged controversy. 


17 Daniels to his son Jonathan, June 10, 1930, Jonathan Daniels Papers. 

18 Daniels to Dr. Alexander Graham, June 11, 1930, Daniels Papers. 

19 See Richard L. Watson, Jr., "The Defeat of Judge Parker: A Study in Pressure 
Groups and Politics," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, L (September, 1963), 
213-234, hereinafter cited as Watson, "The Defeat of Judge Parker." 

20 Daniels to Chase, March 2, 1927, University Papers, University Archives. 
81 News and Observer, May 8, 1930. 

The "Tar Heel Editor," 1929-1932 275 

Judge Parker managed to repress his bitterness and closed ranks with 
Daniels on the university board of trustees, where the passage of time 
saw them become the most cordial of colleagues. Judge Parker's repu- 
diation by the Senate was in later years termed a great mistake by the 
American Bar Association Journal, 22 and Josephus Daniels probably 
agreed. In early 1941, following President Roosevelt's appointment of 
Republicans Henry L. Stimson and Frank Knox to the Cabinet, Daniels 
came forward with the name of John J. Parker for a vacancy on the 
United States Supreme Court. After Daniels' death, Parker served as 
chairman of the trustee committee named to draw up a memorial 
resolution in Daniels' honor. Judge Parker delivered the oral tribute 
personally. 23 

The Democratic state administration, elected triumphantly in 1928 
despite the Al Smith disaster, predictably caught the blows of a pro- 
fessional critic like Josephus Daniels who was anti-organization on 
principle. The able Governor O. Max Gardner, who had enjoyed 
Daniels' strong support, had no more than a brief honeymoon before 
the News and Observer opened fire on him. In the very month of his 
election Gardner got from Daniels a long letter on needed reforms 
in the state administration, and before his inauguration another on 
Daniels' chief concern in the oncoming legislative session— an eight- 
month, state-supported school term. 24 The session closed with Daniels 
generally happy with Gardner's own program as enacted, especially 
the secret ballot and workmen's compensation laws. The honeymoon 
was over, however, insofar as it concerned education and a lower 
statewide property tax, the latter having been one of Gardner's avowed 
aims which was not realized. By the time the 1929 legislature ad- 
journed, having put off the eight-month school term, Daniels criticized 
that element in the General Assembly determined to stand fast on 
appropriations and revenues and backed by a lobby representing every 
industry fearing a tax increase. As he saw it, the 1928 election had 
frightened some of them and they, in turn, succeeded in frightening 
many revenue-conscious legislators with the threat of a Republican 
victory next time. 25 

The eight-month school fight dominated the session as it dominated 
the pages of the News and Observer. The reform was embodied in a 
House bill introduced by A. D. MacLean, whose measure also ap- 
pealed to Josephus Daniels, because it provided at first for a reduction 

28 See Watson, "The Defeat of Judge Parker," 234. 

83 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, the Consolidated University of North 
Carolina, February 16, 1948, University Archives. 

24 Daniels to Gardner, November 22, December 31, 1928, Daniels Papers. 
26 News and Observer, March 19, 1929. 

276 The North Carolina Historical Review 

in ad valorem property taxes. Daniels saw no tax reform more neces- 
sary than easing the burden from the small farmers of a rural state 
and shifting it by means of luxury sales taxes and taxes on industry. 
At first the bill had the support of nobody but its sponsor and Josephus 
Daniels. Then the editor got the support of the State Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, Dr. Arch T, Allen, whom he invited to press for 
the eight-month bill by writing a News and Observer article. In his 
invitation to Allen, Daniels took note: "The opponents of the eight 
months' school term are trying to use the negro issue as a red her- 
ring." 26 The industry lobbyists made the point that the majority of 
children to be benefited were Negroes, since most schools in the state 
already had an eight-month term and the underprivileged remainder 
lived mostly in the rural areas. When the Senate provided for a too- 
small public school equalization fund of $6.5 million, Daniels edi- 
torialized that "The children's eight months right to schools was post- 
poned to the pleadings of those able to pay taxes that they be 
excused." 2T 

The rear guard battle to resist the scuttling of the measure was 
made by Representative F. D. Winston after MacLean had given up. 
Daniels wrote Winston hopefully but realistically, "I hope you are 
going to win but the odds are terrible." 28 He was right. The resulting 
measure, although foreshadowing eventual state assumption of sup- 
port of all public schools, did not provide the eight-month school 
term. Its doubling of the public school equalization fund in the last 
"prosperity" legislature would have comforted Daniels more, if it had 
provided tax relief for the small farmers of the state. In a prosperous 
year the legislature had failed to reduce the thirty-cent ad valorem 
property tax. Throughout the session Daniels' News and Observer agi- 
tated for raising the needed revenue on a fifty-fifty basis from an equal 
statewide ad valorem tax ( now widely unequal because property was 
long overvalued ) and from commercial and industrial activities which, 
Daniels claimed, were not paying their fair share. 

The stock market crash of 1929 acted merely as a punctuation mark 
in the story of North Carolina's deepening agricultural— and now total 
—depression. The state Democratic platform of 1930 recognized the 
need for substantial reduction of taxes on property and pledged the 
party to work for it. By the end of that year it was widely apparent that 
farms in the state could not be rented for enough to pay taxes on them, 
that industries were shutting down right and left. At that time delin- 

88 Daniels to Allen, January 30, 1929, Daniels Papers. 
27 News and Observer, March 13, 1929. 

28 Daniels to Winston, March 15, 1929, F. D. Winston Papers, Southern Historical 

The "Tar Heel Editor," 1929-1932 277 

quent taxes on real property came to nearly $7.5 million, and more 
than 150,000 parcels of property were advertised for tax sales. 29 Resist- 
ing the anxious calls for a special session of the legislature, Governor 
Gardner set up a series of tax and revenue investigations plus a com- 
plete study of state and county government by the Brookings Institu- 
tion of Washington. Its year-end report recommended a sweeping 
centralization of state government functions ( including a consolidated 
university), and elimination of unnecessary state offices and county 
units. Josephus Daniels quarreled with none of this but, as usual, got 
down to cases. Like presidential aspirant Franklin Roosevelt, he 
wanted reform and relief quickly lest the men in the streets take mat- 
ters into their own hands; Daniels recognized the need to forestall a 
new populist revolt— or worse. 30 To Governor Gardner, with whom he 
was no longer so close, Daniels wrote a long letter suggesting three 
revenue principles to stress in approaching the new General Assem- 
bly: (1) revaluing and thus equalizing disparate property valuations 
throughout the state; (2) taxing foreign corporations doing business 
in the state; and (3) taxing the untaxed. 31 Some of his spirit on this 
last-named point may be gained from his words to Senator Carter 
Glass: "The Duke Power Co. is charging high rates and making big 
money in North Carolina and poses as a religious organization 
[through the benefactions of the Duke Endowment tied to company 
profits]! Isn't that the limit?" 32 

For the one hundred and forty days of the "Long Parliament" of 
1931, the News and Observer unceasingly proclaimed, "Taxes on prop- 
erty must be reduced." The Governor agreed, but he and Daniels 
differed on procedure; he looked to retrenchment and Daniels sought 
new sources of revenue. Two proposals for the latter deeply divided 
the legislators, who fought so unceasingly that neither proposal was 
adopted that session— a general sales tax and a luxury sales tax. Daniels 
ranged himself against a general sales tax, regarding it as an indefensi- 
ble imposition on the people least able to pay. He supported instead 
the Hinsdale bill, which proposed taxes on a list of enumerated items 
it designated luxuries, such as tobacco, playing cards, chewing gum, 
automobiles, and admission to commercial entertainment. Needless 
to say, additional items came under scrutiny and it was not long 
before the tobacco, power, and bottling interests joined in a bitter 
fight against any luxury tax. Daniels fought just as bitterly, because 

29 Report of the Tax Commission, 1932, cited in Puryear, Democratic Party Dissen- 
sion, 60. 

30 Daniels to L. A. Bethune, November 25, 1930, Daniels Papers. 

31 Daniels to Gardner, December 23, 1930, Daniels Papers. 

32 Daniels to Glass, February 26, 1931, Daniels Papers. 

278 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the luxury tax was needed to implement the state's taking over, operat- 
ing, and maintaining the public school system. One way or another this 
had to be, for many of the counties were now unable to support public 
education. In an attempt to defeat the interests Daniels, along with 
state Grange Master W. Kerr Scott, tried to rally the farm people 
and printed in the News and Observer a petition to be signed and 
sent to the legislators. The petition supported the school take-over in 
the MacLean Bill "for relieving the present crushing tax burden on 
the houses and farms of North Carolina. We call for the proper taxa- 
tion of the most prosperous interests in the state in such a manner as 
to make them bear their fair and just share of taxation, supplemented 
by a luxury tax to insure the operation of the MacLean Law." 33 

Hammering away at privilege, Daniels hit out repeatedly at the 
Duke Power Company. He tried mightily to dissociate it from Duke 
University, of which he was now— as of all educational institutions— a 
warm friend. ( He and Mrs. Daniels often drove over to visit on the new 
West Durham campus. ) For example, on April 22, 1931, he wrote an 
enthusiastic report from Duke University, "A Significant Advance and 
Novel Experiment," about the new Duke Hospital and School of 
Medicine. Yet in that same spring of 1931 he published one of his most 
trenchant editorials, "The Duke Threat." An official of the company 
had let it be known to the South Carolina legislature, then contem- 
plating a power company tax, that such an enactment would cause 
the Duke Foundation to cut down its benefactions in the Palmetto 
State. In North Carolina a Durham legislator warned that a "recapture 
clause" sought in the General Assembly against power companies 
"would be taxing retired Methodist ministers and charity wards." In 
another editorial on April 2, "Blessing or Curse," Daniels put it most 
bluntly: "The Duke Foundation is a noble benefaction. If the Duke 
Power Company should be permitted to use its [The Duke Founda- 
tion's] good name to escape just taxation in the Carolinas it would be 
a curse. . . . The other power companies swing onto the coat-tails 
of this company, part of whose earnings go to the holiest purposes, 
and thereby escape just taxation and all are enabled to charge exces- 
sive prices for light and power." Lobbying in the 1931 legislature 
probably was the most frenzied in the state's history, and in those 
troubled times there was apparently more distrust of the legislators 
than usual. Before the "Long Parliament" came to a close, Josephus 
Daniels had received a great volume of laudatory mail. The disillu- 
sioned former state leader of the Ku Klux Klan of the twenties, Judge 

83 News and Observer, March 29, 1931. 

The "Tar Heel Editor," 1929-1932 279 

Henry A. Grady, expressing a rural and populistic outrage at the 
lobbies and their corrupting influence, suggested the announcement 
of A. D. McLean or of Josephus Daniels as candidate for governor. 34 
The linking of the two names did not do Daniels full justice. Unlike 
A. D. MacLean, who had extensive commercial property, the editor 
could not be charged with a conflict of interest in seeking a lower ad 
valorem property tax. 

The marathon legislative session of 1931 accomplished sweeping 
reform in the state. 35 North Carolina took over the county roads and 
schools, merged the three leading state educational institutions into 
the Consolidated University of North Carolina, and stabilized the 
credit of smaller governmental units through a Local Government 
Act. The revenue bill was a compromise that pleased nobody. Cor- 
porate income and franchise taxes were raised by $2.25 million. These 
were somewhat offset by the reduction in local taxes made possible by 
state maintenance and operation of roads and schools. The compro- 
mise called for a fifteen-cent ad valorem tax for the schools, but this 
apparent halving of the property tax was a mirage effected through 
further postponement of a revaluation of property. In addition, the 
revenue bill provided for a known biennial deficit of some $5 million. 
Josephus Daniels editorialized in his legislative review: 

The deficit-breeding revenue measure was rushed through under the 
whip and spur of those who preferred to deal a staggering blow to educa- 
tion and to issue bonds for current expenses than to impose just taxation 
on millions of dollars worth of property untaxed or undertaxed or let the 
users of non-essentials bear a fair part of the burdens of government. . . . 
No such lobby has been seen in Raleigh since 1887 (and that was smaller 
and gave less display of extravagance) when it maintained an open bar 
for legislators in the Yarborough House. 36 

In later years Daniels acknowledged Governor Gardner's constructive 
leadership, recalling of him: "He held the rudder true in progress in 
education, roads, and devised ways to carry on every state function 
in a day of distress and depression." 3T But the bitter political fights 
of those days probably helped stimulate Daniels' only known use of 
profanity. As reporter Ben Dixon MacNeill recalled it, Daniels would 
then say, at the mention of one of three Tar Heel politicians, "Mac- 
Neill, he is a son-of-a-bitch, net." 38 

34 Grady to Daniels, May 5, 1931, Daniels Papers. 

35 On the North Carolina legislature of 1931, see Puryear, Democratic Party Dis- 
sension, 59-91; Gill interview. Gill represented Scotland County in the 1931 General 

36 News and Observer, May 31, 1931. 

37 Daniels, "Life Begins at Seventy." 

^MacNeill to Jonathan Daniels [June 30, 1950], in Jonathan Daniels Papers. 

280 The North Carolina Historical Review 

There was a great deal of discontent in the depression-stricken 
state, and there was apparently much grass roots support for Josephus 
Daniels for governor. 39 His collected papers bear witness to it. From 
Scotland County in the East came promise of widespread support 
because "Josephus Daniels ... is not stuck up and understands poor 
folks. . . ." From Rutherford County in the West came a plea that 
Daniels as governor could defend the small taxpayers from "the domi- 
nation of the public utilities and other big interests, in our political 
affairs. . . ." 40 Daniels had a long record of declining to offer for elected 
office, but he was now tempted more than at any time in his life. 
Delegations came to see him throughout the fall of 1931, and he was 
his usually cautious self with these admirers. There is no doubt that 
he put great reliance, as always, on the advice of his older brother 
Judge Frank A. Daniels, who openly disapproved and who begged 
him not to "weaken your influence and that of your paper which is 
to be left as an inheritance to your children/' 41 Nevertheless, the sur- 
prise withdrawal of one of the most promising gubernatorial hopefuls, 
Attorney General Dennis G. Brummitt, on November 2, 1931, put 
additional pressure on Daniels to make an announcement. So did the 
possible gubernatorial hopes of his own political ally, A. D. MacLean. 
But Daniels' serious injury in an automobile accident on January 13, 
1932, turned the tide. A month later he made a formal withdrawal 
from the approaching contest, to the unanimous applause of his wife, 
"Miss Addie," and the other Danielses. He was in his seventieth year, 
and it was generally concluded that he was too old and battered for 
hard political service. Daniels would show them. 

The automobile injury might have daunted the will to recover of an 
old man who was not morally certain, like Daniels, that 1932 was the 
year of destiny for Franklin D. Roosevelt. Daniels rode as a passenger 
—in fact he never learned to drive a car— in the automobile of a promi- 
nent Atlanta attorney when their car was sideswiped, forced down an 
embankment and into a tree. It occurred in an Atlanta suburb on the 
return from Mount Berry, Georgia, where Daniels had helped cele- 
brate the thirtieth anniversary of the Berry Schools for underprivi- 
leged youngsters. "I'm just a scarred soldier," he murmured to friends 
during the long wait, in good spirits, to enter the X ray and operating 
rooms at St. Joseph's Infirmary. Actually his head was cut open, leav- 

39 See E. David Cronon, "Josephus Daniels as a Reluctant Candidate," North Caro- 
lina Historical Review, XXXIII (October, 1956), 458-465, hereinafter cited as Cronon, 
"Josephus Daniels." 

*°H. O. Covington to Daniels, undated [1931], and 0. R. Coffield to Daniels, June 
3, 1931, quoted in Cronon, "Josephus Daniels." 

41 Judge Frank A. Daniels to Daniels, October 4, 1931, Daniels Papers. 

The "Tar Heel Editor," 1929-1932 281 

ing that most vivid of several scars on his forehead; his left arm 
broken in several places between elbow and wrist, leaving the hand 
somewhat stiffened for life; and his left leg badly cut by glass. 42 Upon 
release from the operating room, X-rayed and stitched up, the old 
warrior almost immediately dictated a letter to President Herbert 
Hoover on behalf of another try for a Supreme Court nomination for 
North Carolina's Chief Justice Walter P. Stacy. 43 The Commercial 
National Bank had failed with Daniels' savings, depressed busi- 
ness conditions threatened the very existence of the News and 
Observer, and the editor was now laid up in St. Joseph's Infirmary. 
At this juncture, January 18, 1932, his wartime friend Bernard Baruch 
voluntarily came forward with a providential loan of $25,000— truly 
a fortune in those days. 44 

"Miss Addie" hurried to her husband's bedside, she who was always 
his best restorative, where she mixed "love and tenderness and disci- 
pline in equal proportions," as Daniels wrote home to his sons. 45 Mar- 
tha Berry, who was understandably distressed at Daniels' injury while 
in Atlanta to visit her school, came in with chicken and custard. One 
of the editor's first acts on returning to Raleigh for convalescence was 
to write Miss Berry, whose educational efforts he so admired and 
whose efforts at providing equal opportunity tallied so well with 
his own ideals: 

... I am home again bringing back with me beautiful and lasting memories 
I spent at Mount Berry with you. Nothing, not even an automobile acci- 
dent, can ever efface the happy memories and the inspiration of that day, 
and my admiration for the demonstration of the great things you have 
done there, the stimulus it has brought elsewhere, the log houses and the 
cathedral effects seen nowhere else, all topped with the scores and scores 
of bright faced youths who had entered the Door of Opportunity you had 
opened to them. And the beauty of the lovely girls cannot be effaced or 
the echoes of the beautiful songs. They are mine now and forever more 
truly than any material possession. 46 

After some additional hesitation on the editor's part, the importunities 
of his family and friends now held sway— he decided not to compete 
for governor. On February 15, the News and Observer carried "A 

42 Associated Press dispatch, News and Observer, January 14, 1932. 

43 Daniels to Hoover, January 16, 1932, Daniels Papers. 

44 On the amount of the loan, see letter from the office of Baruch to Daniels, April 
29, 1936, Daniels Papers; the circumstances concerning the loan were described in a 
letter from Bernard M. Baruch to the author, September 25, 1962. 

45 Daniels to his sons, January 20, 1932, Bagley Family Papers, Southern Historical 

46 Daniels to Martha Berry, January 29, 1932, Bagley Family Papers. 

282 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Statement by the Editor," in which Daniels recognized that his support 
came because of program and not personal popularity, and that the 
program, which he restated at length, could get his more effective 
long-term support in the newspaper than in the executive mansion. 
Nevertheless, on the very day of the announcement, he opined to a 
supporter in Charlotte, "I have no doubt that I would have been 
nominated. . . ." 4T And it was a conviction the editor held all his life. 
In the unpublished memoir composed shortly before his death, Daniels 
wrote of 1932 when "I was urged and tempted to become a candidate 
for Governor, when the nomination was assured." Also from the un- 
published memoir, "'You are one North Carolinian,' said Governor 
O. Max Gardner, perhaps the only one, who can say that when the 
Governorship was practically in his grasp he "declined the crown."" 
By now Gardner and Daniels, who liked one another personally, were 
congenial allies in the task of making Franklin D. Roosevelt President 
of the United States. 

47 Daniels to E. Randolph Preston, February 15, 1932, Daniels Papers. 



By G. Melvin Herndon* 

Agriculture was a conspiciously essential part of Indian subsistence 
in southeastern North America. The natives were hunters, but they 
were also agriculturists. They lived in fixed habitations, tilled the soil, 
and subsisted as much, if not more, on their agricultural products than 
they did from those of the chase; scarcity of food in the winter, soil 
depletion, hostile Indian tribes, or white settlers forced the Indians to 
move about. 

The early accounts contain numerous references to the "Indian 
fields" and villages. William Strachey mentioned Kecoughtan, Vir- 
ginia, where a large concentration of Indians displayed great skill as 
husbandmen on land suitable for cultivation. 1 The German traveler, 
John Lederer, in 1670, found a group of Siouan Indians living near 
present Clarksville, Virginia, that put in an immense store of corn, and 
he observed that they always had a year's supply of provisions in re- 
serve. 2 In 1775 James Adair wrote: "And their tradition says they did 
not live straggling in the American woods, as do the Arabians, and 
rambling Tartars; for they made houses with the branches and bark of 
trees for the summer-season; and warm mud-walls, mixt with soft 
dry grass, against the bleak winter." 3 From the experience of the In- 
dians the colonists learned how to live in Colonial America. The na- 
tives taught the white settlers how to clear the land, what seeds to 
plant, what soils to cultivate and how to plant and cultivate their 
crops. There is little doubt that the Indian contributed much to the 
survival of the early colonists and to American agriculture. 

* Dr. Herndon is associate professor of history, University of Georgia, Athens. 

1 Louis B. Wright and Virginia Freund (eds.), The Historie of Travell into Virginia 
Britania (1612), by William Strachey, gent. (London: Hakluyt Society [Second Series, 
•No. CIII], 1953), 67, hereinafter cited as Strachey, Virginia Britania. 

2 Clarence W. Alvord and Lee Bidgood, First Explorations of the Trans-Allegheny 
Region by the Virginians, 1650-1674 (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1912), 

3 James Adair, The History of the American Indians; Particularly Those Nations 
Adjoining to the Missis[s~\ippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North 
Carolina and Virginia . . . (London: Printed for Edward and Charles Dilly in the 
Poultry [sic], 1775), 405, hereinafter cited as Adair, History of the American Indians. 

284 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The first task performed by the Indian farmer was that of clearing 
the land of trees and bushes. He usually selected the most fertile soil 
for cultivation, which was generally along river bottoms or near other 
bodies of water. The advantages for hunting and fishing probably had 
something to do with the selection of a site for planting, but no doubt 
the Indians understood the value of good soil. The method of clearing 
seems to have been the same from Virginia to Florida. Adair wrote 
that "In the first clearings of their plantations, they only bark the 
large timber, cut down the sapplings and underwood, and burn them 
in heaps; as the suckers shoot up, they chop them off close to the 
stump, of which they make fires to deaden the roots, till in time they 
decay." 4 This process is almost identical with that described by Cap- 
tain John Smith, Robert Beverley, John Lawson, and Alanson Skinner. 5 
Lawson noted that in North Carolina the best lands were not always 
used because of the size of the trees on them, 6 while Henry Spelman 
affirmed a more robust treatment than Adair: "the[y] cutt doune the 
greate trees sum half a yard aboue the ground, and y e smaller they 
burne at the roote pullinge a good part of barke from them to make 
them die. . . ." 7 

The Indians usually built their villages of varying sizes in the midst 
of these clearings. 8 Smith says, "Their houses are in the midst of their 
fields or gardens, which are small plots of ground. Some 20 acres, some 
40. some 100. some 200. some more, some lesse. In some places [there 
were] from 2 to 50 of those houses together, or but a little separated 
by groues of trees." 9 According to Strachey, the village of Kecoughtan 
contained about 1,000 Indians, 300 houses, and 2,000 or 3,000 acres 
of cleared land suitable for planting. 10 

Among the Algonquins, located from Virginia to the Neuse River, 
each family had its own carefully cultivated garden. This garden was 

4 Adair, History of the American Indians, 405-406. 

5 Lyon Gardner Tyler (ed.), Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606-1625, unnumbered 
volume in J. Franklin Jameson (ed.), Original Narratives of Early American History 
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons [19 volumes, 1906-1917], 1907), 95-96, herein- 
after cited as Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia; Strachey, Virginia Britania, 79; 
Louis B. Wright (ed.), The History and Present State of Virginia, by Robert Beverley 
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1947), 143, hereinafter cited as 
Beverley, Present State of Virginia; Alanson Skinner, "Notes on the Florida Semi- 
nole," American Anthropologist, XV (January, 1913), 76. 

8 Frances Latham Harriss (ed.), Lawson \s History of North Carolina (Richmond: 
Garrett and Massie, 1937), 84, hereinafter cited as Harriss, Lawson 's History. 

7 Henry Spelman, "Relation of Virginia," in Edward Arber (ed.), Travels and 
Works of Captain John^ Smith, President of Virginia and Admiral of New England, 
1580-1631 (Edinburgh: John Grant, 2 volumes, 1910), I, cxi, hereinafter cited as 
Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith. 

8 David Bushnell, Jr., Native Village Sites East of the Mississippi (Washington: 
Government Printing Office [Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 69], 1919), 32. 

9 Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, I, 363. 

10 Strachey, Virginia Britania, 67. 

Indian Agriculture 





crm: '.-- ^wr .-■< 


I I 1! II 




Village of Secoton, a watercolor by John White, showing on the right the three 
plantings of corn typical of Indian agricultural practices discussed in this article. 
The top field is described as "Their rype corne" and includes a small shelter on a 
raised platform for use by "watchers," whose duty it was to keep the birds from 
injuring the corn. The second field is labeled "Their greene corne," and the third, 
"Corne newly sprong." Faint indications of hills can be distinguished in the bottom 
field. This illustration is from The American Drawings of John White, 1577-1590, 
edited by Hulton and Quinn. 

286 The North Carolina Historical Review 

commonly a small plot of ground 100 by 200 feet, and it furnished 
food until the large fields could be harvested. The large fields which 
supplied most of the food for the entire population lay on the out- 
skirts of the village. Little houses or shelters raised upon platforms 
were built in the fields and were occupied by watchers, usually women 
or children, whose duty it was to keep the birds from injuring the 
crops. 11 This practice was also customary among the ancient Tumucua 
tribes in northern Florida. 12 

Lands belonging to the Indian tribes were divided into communities 
or petty provinces, each governed by its local chief, who was usually 
subject to a higher chief. To the greater chieftains the people paid 
tribute of corn, wild beasts, deer, and other gifts. The gardens of the 
principal chiefs among the Algonquins were cared for by the people, 
who met by appointment to plant and later harvest the crops. The 
Creeks paid their chiefs tribute by contributing a portion of their own 
harvest to the king's granary, which was a public treasury to which 
every member had a right of free and equal access when his own 
private stores were consumed. It served also as a surplus to accommo- 
date travelers, to assist neighboring villagers whose crops had failed, 
and to afford provisions for expeditions against hostile tribes. 13 There 
was no fixed rule as to the size of a garden or cornfield an individual 
or family might plant. Each member of the village could clear as much 
land to cultivate as he pleased, and as long as it was cultivated his 
right to it was protected; if abandoned, anyone might acquire the 
right to use it. According to the custom or law, the land belonged to 
the tribe and no person could acquire an absolute title to any part 
of it. 14 

Tillage as practiced by the Indian differed from that practiced by 
the European. The field crops grown in England at the time of the 
discovery of America were largely broadcast seeded. Virtually every 
crop grown by the Indian was planted in rows and each stalk or 
plant hoed to keep down the weeds— one of several examples illustrat- 

u Charles C. Willoughby, "The Virginia Indians in the Seventeenth Century," 
American Anthropologist, IX (January, 1907), 82-83, hereinafter cited as Willoughby, 
"Virginia Indians." 

12 John R. Swanton, Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors 
(Washington: Government Printing Office [Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 
73], 1922), 360. 

13 G. K. Holmes, "Aboriginal Agriculture — The American Indian," in L. H. Bailey 
(ed.), Cyclopedia of American Agriculture (New York: Macmillan Company, 4 
volumes [Second Edition], 1910), IV, 33, hereinafter cited as Holmes, "Aboriginal 

u Lucien Carr, "The Food of Certain American Indians and Their Methods of 
Preparing It," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, New Series, X 
(April 1, 1895), 163, hereinafter cited as Carr, "Food of Certain American Indians"; 
Willoughby, "Virginia Indians," 57. 

Indian Agriculture 287 

ing that American farm practices were influenced by Indian agricul- 
ture. Intertillage of such crops as tobacco, corn, and beans had been 
commonly practiced in America by the white man more than one 
hundred years before Jethro Tull wrote his Horse Hoeing Husbandry 
(1733) and had been in use by the Indians for centuries. In their 
common method of hill planting, the soil in the intervening spaces 
was not broken. The hills were from twelve to twenty inches in diame- 
ter and about three feet apart, and the soil in these hills was all that 
was stirred or loosened. As the tobacco plant or corn stalk grew, loose 
dirt was scraped around it thus keeping down the weeds and grass. 
Hilling may have been practiced for a more important reason, to pre- 
vent the plants from falling over during high winds and wet weather. 
Hilling promoted the production of buttress or bracer roots on the 
lower part of the stem in both corn and tobacco. The same thing can- 
not be accomplished by deep planting. Certain peculiarities about 
the structure and development of both of the above plants cause the 
main part of the root system to develop near the surface of the soil 
regardless of the depth of planting. 15 The hills were used over and 
over in successive seasons and became quite sizable mounds of earth. 
The early colonists followed the Indian method of seeding but often 
neglected the weeding and were frequently subjected to ridicule for 
their shiftlessness by the painstaking Indian squaws. 

Later, in using animal labor for cultivation the colonists found it 
more feasible to kill the weeds and grass by breaking and stirring 
the intervening ground, and more modern methods of cultivation sub- 
sequently evolved. Thus the colonists provided the chief requisite for 
soil erosion by stirring the soil over the entire field. As long as an 
unbroken sod was retained between each hill, there was little danger 
of any significant amount of erosion. For this reason it appears that 
the Indians were able to grow corn on the same field longer than the 
white settlers. Recent tests have proven that row crops are not bene- 
fited by frequent cultivation if the weeds are kept out by other 
means, another instance where modern agriculturists have discovered 
that many of the farming practices of the Indians were based on sound 

The Indians practiced a rotation of fields rather than a rotation of 
crops. A field was "cropped" until it no longer produced profitable 
yields, then it was abandoned and new land cleared. The colonists 
followed the Indian example, as clearing new land was more feasible 
than fertilizing the old. Several years later the abandoned fields were 

15 Paul Weatherwax, Indian Corn in Old America (New York: Macmillan Company, 
1954), 70, hereinafter cited as Weatherwax, Indian Corn. 

288 The North Carolina Historical Review 

frequently taken over by someone else or returned to cultivation by 
the original holder. So added to the several other Indian agricultural 
practices adopted by the white settlers was that of restoring fertility 
by resting land. 16 

The Indians could scarcely have avoided the beneficial effects of 
decaying organic matter on plant growth, yet, outside of New Eng- 
land, they appear to have made little or no use of any kind of manures. 
Smith wrote: "In Virginia they never manure their outworne fields, 
which is very few, the ground for the most part is so fertile: but in 
New-England they doe, sticking at every plant of corne a herring or 
two. . . " 17 On Roanoke Island Hariot observed: 

The ground they neuer fatten with mucke, dounge or any other thing; 
neither plow nor digge it as we in England, . . . [they] doe onely breake 
the vpper part of the ground to rayse vp the weedes, grasse, & old stubbes 
of corne stalkes with their rootes. The[se] which after a day or twoes 
drying in the Sunne, being scrapte vp into many small heapes, to saue 
them labour for carrying them away; they burne into ashes. (And where- 
as some may thinke that they vse the ashes for to better the grounde; I 
say that then they woulde eyther disperse the ashes abroade ; which wee 
obserued they do not, except the heapes to be too great : or els would take 
speciall care to set their corne where the ashes lie, which also wee finde 
they are careless of.) And this is all the husbanding of their ground that 
they vse. 18 

Again the colonists copied the Indian, even after the introduction of 
a considerable number of livestock, which the Indian did not possess. 
The colonist failed to fertilize his crops for the same reasons as the 
Indian: scarcity of manures, the amount of labor required, and, most 
importantly, the abundance of fertile land. 

According to contemporary accounts, one of the most common 
characteristics of Indian agriculture was that the planting and cultiva- 
tion was done largely by the women, though the amount contributed 
by the male varied somewhat in different areas. In preparing a field 
for cultivation, the first task was to clear it; this portion of the work 
belonged to the men. They girdled and killed the trees, burned the 
brush and dead wood, and then handed the field over to the squaws 
who broke up the ground for the making of hills, using hoes made of 
wood, bone, stone, or shell. 19 Smith related: 

16 It might be noted here that agriculturists now insist that resting land does not 
restore fertility; however, this was a common belief until the twentieth century. 

17 Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, II, 952. 

18 Thomas Hariot, A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia 
(New York: History Book Club, Inc., 1951), unnumbered 17-18, hereinafter cited as 
Hariot, A Brief and True Report. 

19 Carr, "Food of Certain American Indians," 164. 

Indian Agriculture 


Jacques le Moyne, an artist who accompanied Rene de Laudonniere's expedition to 
Florida in 1564, gave this description of the agricultural practices of the natives: 
"The Indians till the soil very diligently, using a kind of hoe made from fish bone 
fitted to wooden handles. Since the soil is very light, these serve well enough to 
cultivate it. After the ground has been well broken up and leveled, the planting is 
done by the women, some making holes with sticks, into which the others drop the 
seeds of beans or maize." Above is a Theodore de Bry engraving of a Le Moyne water- 
color. The women wear skirts made of Spanish moss. From The New World, edited 
and annotated by Stefan Lorant (New York: Duell, Sloane & Pearce, 1946). 

The men bestowe their times in fishing, hunting, wars and such manlike 
exercises, scorning to be seene in any woman like exercise ; which is the 
cause that the women be verie painefull and the men often idle. The 
women and children do the rest of the worke. They make mats, baskets, 
pots, morters ; pound their corne, make their bread, prepare their victuals, 
plant their corne, and gather their corne, beare al kind of burdens, and 
such like. 20 

According to Hariot, the men also helped prepare the ground for 

... a fewe daies before they sowe or set, the men with wooden instruments, 
made almost in [the] forme of mattockes or hoes with long handles ; the 
women with short peckers or parers, because they vse them sitting, of a 

Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, I, 67. 

290 The North Carolina Historical Review 

foote long and about fiue inches in breadth: doe onely breake the vpper 
part of the ground. . . . 21 

It has been said that in North Carolina the women never planted the 
corn, and that among the Tunicas of the lower Mississippi valley all 
of the work was done by the men. 22 Some confusion on this point may 
have been due to the fact that in addition to the communal field there 
were small garden areas about most Indian villages which were main- 
tained entirely by the women. 

The Indians carried on their work much in the manner of the husk- 
ing, quilting, and other "work frolics" that became common among 
the colonists. 23 The people of each village worked together in common 
fields, though the allotments of the different households were sepa- 
rated by a narrow strip of grass, poles, or some other suitable natural 
or artificial boundary. Among the Creeks, care of the fields was under 
the charge of an overseer, said to be elected: "He called the men to 
the square by going through the village blowing upon a conch shell 
or uttering a loud cry. Immediately they gathered with hoes and axes, 
and then marched in order to the field as if they were going into 
battle, headed by their overseer. The women followed in detached 
parties bearing the provisions for the day." 24 As a general rule the 
planting season for the out-fields began when the wild fruit had 
ripened, so as to draw off the birds and prevent them from picking up 
the grain. 25 The small garden plots in or near the village were planted 
earlier and provided the first harvest. 

Work began at one end of the common field, in a plot of ground 
chosen by lot, and when the task on that one was completed, they 
moved to the next adjoining one, and so on until the entire field was 
planted. 26 Sometimes one of their orators cheered the workers on with 
jests and humorous old tales and sang some of their most agreeable 
tunes while beating a drum. At the end of a workday, all of the work- 
ers were usually feasted by the families for whom they had worked 
on that particular day. 27 Work usually ceased around noon for the 

21 Hariot, A Brief and True Report, unnumbered 17. 

22 John R. Swan ton, Aboriginal Culture of the Southeast (Washington: Government 
Printing Office [Forty-second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology], 
1928), 691, hereinafter cited as Swanton, Aboriginal Culture. 

23 Carr, "Food of Certain American Indians," 162. 

24 John R. Swanton, Social Organization and Social Usages of the Indians of the 
Creek Confederacy (Washington: Government Printing Office [Forty-second Report 
of the Bureau of American Ethnology], 1928), 443. 

25 Adair, History of the American Indians, 406. 

26 Mark Van Doren (ed.), The Travels of William Bartram (New York: Dover 
Publications, 1928), 401. 

27 Carr, "Food of Certain American Indians," 163. 

Indian Agriculture 291 

day, and after the feast the afternoon was devoted to a ball game and 
the evening to dancing. 28 

The following is one of the better accounts of their manner of plant- 
ing corn: 

. . . beginning in one corner of the plot, with a pecker they make a hole, 
wherein they put foure graines with that care they touch not one another, 
(about an inch asunder) and couer them with the moulde againe: and so 
through out the whole plot, making such holes and vsing them after such 
maner [sic] : but with this regard that they bee made in rankes, euery 
ranke differing from [the] other [by] halfe a f adome or a yarde, and the 
holes also in euery ranke, as much. By this meanes there is a yarde spare 
ground betwene euery hole : where according to discretion here and there, 
they set as many Beanes and Peaze: in diuers places also among the 
seedes of Macocqwer [squash and pumpkin] Melden [an herb] and Planta 
Solis [sunflower]. 29 

Corn was grown over a larger area of North America than any other 
domesticated plant and is certainly one of the oldest in America. It 
was the main dependence of all tribes south of the St. Lawrence River 
and east of the Mississippi. 30 

The Indians grew three or four varieties of corn. Hariot mentioned 
three types, two of which grew to be 6 or 7 feet tall, and ripened in 11 
or 12 weeks after planting; the third grew to a height of about 10 feet 
and ripened in 14 weeks. Each stalk might have from 1 to 4 ears on 
it, with some 500 to 700 grains on each ear. The grains were about the 
size of an English pea and might be of several colors, white, red, yel- 
low, or blue. 31 Near Jamestown Smith observed: "Every stalke of their 
corn commonly beareth two eares, some 3, seldome any 4, many but 
one, and some none. Every eare ordinarily hath betwixt 200 and 500 
graines." 32 They began planting in April, but the chief plantings came 
during May and continued until the middle of June. What was planted 
in April was harvested in August, that planted in May was harvested 
in September, and that planted in June was harvested in October. 
Perhaps the best description of Indian corn was given by Beverley in 

There are Four Sorts of Indian Corn, Two of which are early ripe, and 
two late ripe. . . . 

The Two Sorts which are early ripe, are distinguish'd only by the Size, 
which shows it self as well in the Grain, as in the Ear, and the Stalk. 
There is some Difference also in the Time of ripening. 

28 Swan ton, Aboriginal Culture, 691. 

29 Hariot, A Brief and True Report, unnumbered 18. 

30 Carr, "Food of Certain American Indians," 159. 

31 Hariot, A Brief and True Report, unnumbered 15. 

32 Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, I, 62. 

292 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The lesser Size of Early ripe Corn, yields an Ear not much larger than 
the Handle of a Case Knife, and grows upon a Stalk between Three and 
Four Foot high. Of this are commonly made Two Crops in a year. . . . 

The larger Sort differs from the former only in Largeness, the Ear of 
this being Seven or Eight Inches long, as thick as a Child's Leg and grow- 
ing upon a Stalk Nine or Ten Foot high. This is fit for eating about the 
latter End of May, whereas the small Sort (generally speaking) affords 
Ears fit to roast by the Middle of May. The Grains of both these Sorts, 
are as plump and swell'd as if the Skin were ready to burst. 

The late ripe Corn is diversify' d by the Shape of the Grain only, with- 
out any Respect to the accidental Differences in Colour, some being blue, 
some red, some yellow, some white, and some streak' d. That therefore 
which makes the Distinction, is the Plumpness or Shrivelling of the Grain ; 
the one looks as smooth and as full as the early ripe Corn, and this they 
call Flint-Corn; the other has a larger Grain, and looks shrivell'd with a 
Dent on the Back of the Grain, as if it had never come to perfection; and 
this they call She-Corn. . . , 33 

According to one scholar, "It may even be said that in four and 
a quarter centuries during which the white race has been grow- 
ing maize almost nothing has been produced that can not be dupli- 
cated among the cultures of the aborigines. The most highly devel- 
oped varieties of flint, flour, pop, and sweet types are little if any 
superior to individual types in native cultures, the chief advance 
having been toward uniformity." 34 

There were no conspicuous differences in the manner in which corn 
was harvested and stored. Among the Algonquins the women gathered 
the corn, each family receiving only what was grown on its own plot. 
The corn was picked and placed in hand baskets, emptied into larger 
baskets as each was filled, and later placed on mats to dry. When 
sufficiently dry, the corn was next placed in the house in piles and 
shelled by "wringinge the ears in pieces between their hands." The 
shelled corn was then placed in a great storage basket which took up 
a large part of the house. Late corn that had to be harvested while 
still green was frequently roasted and buried in the ground. 35 The 
corn might be stored in a crib raised on eight posts about seven feet 
above the ground 36 and curing hastened by fires built underneath. 
Thus the granary, public or private, might be a portion of the wig- 
wam, a hole in the ground, or a storehouse raised above the ground. 

The husks of an ear of Indian corn were thick, tough and coarse, 

33 Beverley, Present State of Virginia, 143-144. 

34 Guy N. Collins, "Notes on the Agricultural History of Maize," Annual Report of 
the American Historical Association for 1919 (Washington: Government Printing 
Office, 2 volumes and a supplement, 1923), I, 423. 

35 Holmes, "Aboriginal Agriculture," 30. 
38 Harriss, Lawson's History, 12. 

Indian Agriculture 


According to Le Moyne, the Indians stored the surplus from their harvests "in low 
and roomy granaries, built of stone and earth and thickly roofed with palm branches 
and a kind of soft earth. To keep the contents better, the granaries are usually 
erected near a mountain or in the shade of a river bank, so as to be sheltered from 
the direct rays of the sun." Above is an engraving by De Bry based on a Le Moyne 
drawing. From The New World, edited and annotated by Stefan Lorant. 

fitted snugly, and extended well beyond the ear. To loosen and remove 
them was not an easy task and reached imposing proportions when 
multiplied by the number of ears to be husked. To ameliorate this 
task the Indians of eastern North America invented the homely husk- 
ing peg, which the white man adopted. In its primitive form it was 
essentially a smooth, round rod of bone or hard wood about half an 
inch in diameter and three or four inches long. One end tapered down 
to a blunt point, and a shallow groove or two around it near the 
middle held a loop of cord or leather, through which one or two 
fingers were inserted to hold the tool on the hand. The blunt point of 
the peg was inserted into the snugly fitting husks at the tapered end 
of the ear, and by applying pressure on the husks held between the 
peg and the thumb of the hand holding the peg, the husks were 
peeled back and snapped off at the opposite end of the ear, thus free- 
ing the ear from its husks. 37 

87 Weatherwax, Indian Corn, 78-79. 

294 The North Carolina Historical Review 

As to yields, one account reported 364 bushels of corn as the product 
of 13 gallons of seed; 38 another in terms of English measure— 200 Lon- 
don bushels of a mixed crop of corn, beans, and peas from an English 
acre; 39 and a third estimated an average yield as 40 bushels per acre. 40 
Corn, beans, and squash were frequently planted in the same field, 
another practice adopted by the colonists. The Indians domesticated 
several kinds of beans: the common bean, often referred to as the 
kidney or Indian bean; the lima bean; and the scarlet-runner bean. All 
three types were grown in the southern colonies. The early writers on 
the American crops frequently employed the phrase "beanes and 
pease." Just what was meant by the term "pease" is difficult to deter- 
mine. It may have been used to indicate more than one specie of bean; 
at times it seems to have been used to mean a small bean. 41 Hariot 
speaks of two kinds of native beans, called by the English beans and 
peas respectively, though the latter seems to have been quite different 
from European peas. 

Okindgier, called by vs Beanes, because in greatnesse & partly in shape 
they are like to the Beanes in England; sauing that they are flatter, of 
more diuers colours, and some pide [piebald] . The leaf e also of the stemme 
is much different. In taste they are altogether as good as our English 

Wickonzowr, called by vs Peaze, in respect of the beanes for distinctio 
sake, because they are much lesse; although in forme they little differ; 
but in goodnesse of tast much, & are far better than our English peaze. 
Both the beanes and the peaze are ripe in tenne weekes after they are set. 42 

Smith mentioned another type of pea which the Indians called "Assen- 
tamens, which are the same as they cal in Italye, Fagioli. . . ." 43 Bev- 
erly wrote: "They have an unknown Variety of them, (but all of a 

Kidney-Shape) some of which I have met with wild " 44 These wild 

peas may have been the marsh pea. 45 

There is also some uncertainty as to the various kinds of creeping 
vines cultivated by the Indians. Many of the creeper plants the white 

^Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, II, 952. Smith was somewhat 
skeptical of this report: "All things they plant prosper exceedingly: but one man of 13. 
gallons of Indian corne, reaped that yeare 364. bushels London measure, as they 
confidently report, at which I much wonder, having planted: many bushels, but no 
such increase. . . ." 

39 Hariot, A Brief and True Report, unnumbered 18. 

40 Holmes, "Aboriginal Agriculture," 31. 

41 Beverley, History of Virginia, 144. 

42 Hariot, A Brief and True Report, unnumbered 16. 
43 Arber, Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, I, 62. 
"Beverley, History of Virginia, 144. 

"John R. Swanton, Indians of the Southeastern United States (Washington: Gov- 
ernment Printing Office [Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137], 1946), 269, 
hereinafter cited as Swanton, Indians of the Southeastern United States. 

Indian Agriculture 295 

explorers had never seen, and those were named for the European 
plants which they most resembled. The evidence seems quite clear, 
however, that several kinds of squash and the ordinary field pumpkin 
were common food crops of the Indians. One observer described these 
plants as follows: 

Macocqwer, according to their seuerall formes called by vs Pompions, 
Mellions, and Gourdes, because they are the like formes as those kindes in 
England. In Virginia such of seuerall formes are of one taste and very 
good, and do also spring from one seed. There are two sorts ; one is ripe 
in the space of a moneth [sic'] , and the other in two moueths [sic'] ." 46 

Beverley gave a more detailed description of the several kinds of 
creeping vines in Virginia. He mentioned muskmelons; several kinds of 
watermelons, red, yellow, and white meated, and some with yellow, 
red, and black seeds; pumpkins; two kinds of squash called ecushaws 
and macocks; and gourds, which the Indians never ate, but planted 
for other uses, such as use of dried shells for containers. 47 

There is a belief that muskmelons and watermelons were introduced 
to the Indians by the Europeans. 48 Captain John Smith made no men- 
tion of them in his descriptions of Virginia published in 1612, but in 
1621 he reported that 

A small ship comming in December last from the Summer-Hands, to Vir- 
ginia, brought thither from thence these Plants, viz. Vines of all sorts, 
Orange and Leman trees, Sugar Canes, Cassado Roots (that make bread) 
Pines, Plantans, Potatoes, and sundry other Indian fruits and plants, not 
formerly seen in Virginia, which begin to prosper very well. 49 

Melons appear several times in the accounts of the various Raleigh 
expeditions. Hariot mentioned melons and Captain John White in 
1587 wrote of seeing melons of "divers sorts." While these sixteenth- 
century American melons may have been squash or pumpkins, there 
is nothing in the statements which would exclude watermelons. There 
is good presumptive evidence that the melons which were served raw 
might have been watermelons. 

There is some controversy as to whether the sweet potato is of 
American or Asian origin. It is generally conceded that America was 
its original home. According to L. C. Gray, "sweet potatoes were in 

46 Hariot, A Brief and True Report, unnumbered 16. 

47 Beverley, History of Virginia, 142. 

48 Willoughby, "Virginia Indians," 84. 

49 Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchas His Pilgrimes ( Glasgow : 
James MacLehose and Sons [20 volumes, 1905-1907], 1906), XIX, 147, hereinafter 
cited as Purchas, Pilgrimes. 

296 The North Carolina Historical Review 

common use in the West Indies when the Spaniards discovered these 
islands. We have no account of their employment by the Virginia 
Indians at the time Jamestown was settled but they were cultivated 
by the Indians of northern Florida and eastern South Carolina." 50 
Various roots, such as tuckahoe or wampee or koonti, used by the In- 
dians were identified as potatoes by early explorers and settlers. 
Strachey says that potatoes had been given a trial in his time ( 1610- 
1612 ). 51 Smith mentioned white, red, and yellow potatoes among the 
products brought by the English from Bermuda in 1620. 52 

It is the opinion of Gray that "Tomatoes, Jerusalem artichokes, gar- 
den peppers, and sunflowers were among the less important contri- 
butions of the New World to agriculture." 53 

Tobacco was firmly established throughout the eastern and southern 
United States at the time of discovery. In the Southeast it is mentioned 
first in Jacques le Moyne's narrative of the Huguenot colony in Flori- 
da. In 1584 Arthur Barlowe noted tobacco growing along with corn 
in the fields of the Algonquin Indians of North Carolina. 54 In 1607 
George Percy was shown a "Garden of Tobacco" by a Powhatan In- 
dian. 55 Strachey offers the fullest account of Indian tobacco in Virginia: 

There is here great store of Tobacco, which the Saluages call Apooke ; 
howbeyt yt is not the best kynd, yt is but poore and weake, and of a byting 
tast, yt growes not fully a yard aboue the grownd, bearing a little yellow 
flower, like a henn-bane, the leaves are short and thick, somewhat rownd at 
the vpper end : . . . the Saluages here dry the leaves of this Apooke over the 
fier, and sometymes in the Sun, and Crumble yt into Powlder, Stalks, 
leaves, and all, taking the same in Pipes of Earth which very ingeniously 
they can make. . . , 66 

At the end of the seventeenth century Beverley wrote: 

How the Indians order'd their Tobacco, I am not certain, they now de- 
pending chiefly upon the English, for what they smoak : But I am inf orm'd, 
they used to let it all run to Seed, only succouring the Leaves, to keep the 
Sprouts from growing upon, and starving them; and when it was ripe, 
they pulPd off the Leaves, cured them in the Sun, and laid them up for 
Use 57 

50 Lewis Cecil Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 
(Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 2 volumes, 1933), I, 4, 
hereinafter cited as Gray, History of Agriculture. 

51 Strachey, Virginia Britania, 38. 
52 Purchas, Pilgrimes, XIX, 147. 

53 Gray, History of Agriculture, I, 5. 

54 Swanton, Indians of the Southeastern United States, 382. 

65 Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia, 16. 

66 Strachey, Virginia Britania, 122-123. 

67 Beverley, History of Virginia, 145. 

Indian Agriculture 297 

The native tobacco, Nicotiana rustica, was inferior to Nicotiana 
tobacum introduced into Virginia by John Rolfe from the West Indies; 
and, as Beverley noted, by the end of the seventeenth century the 
Indians of Virginia were depending mainly upon the English for their 
ordinary smoking tobacco. The colonists soon found the native Indian 
tobacco unsatisfactory to their taste and imported a new variety that 
truly became the "golden weed" for several of the colonies; but it 
must be remembered that it was the Indian who taught the colonists 
how to grow it. 

Of all the hay and pasture plants of importance east of the Missis- 
sippi, there is scarcely one which was not introduced by the colonists. 
Many early explorers wrote of "goodly meadows," not knowing that 
the salt marsh grasses they saw growing along the coast were very 
inferior for forage. Had the Indian of the Southeast possessed horses 
and cattle before the coming of the white men, perhaps he might have 
developed an excellent hay crop from the wild rye that was found 
growing from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, 58 or from the 
several varieties of peas and beans. 

If the natives of southeastern North America had been ignorant 
of agriculture, the colonization of America would probably have been 
delayed, for without aid from the Indians the planting of Jamestown 
might have failed. It was largely through the knowledge of agricul- 
ture learned from the Indians that the colony was enabled to survive 
the first few years. Perhaps the next greatest contribution of the 
Indians was the clearing of land for crops which the whites sooner or 
later took over, by force or other means. This speeded up the coloni- 
zation by a considerable degree, for it would have taken generations 
for a small handful of colonists to clear enough land for survival. It 
has been said that the Valley of Virginia and sections of the Carolina 
Piedmont were without trees when the Europeans first came. Those 
sections and the areas used by the Indians for farming were practically 
the only breaks in the forests. 

In some instances Indian agriculture was further advanced than 
that of the Old World. The colonists learned many valuable lessons 
in New World agriculture from the natives and several of their prin- 
ciples and practices have been proven sound by American agricul- 

Gray, History of Agriculture, I, 4-5. 


For History's Sake: The Preservation and Publication of North Carolina 
History, 1663-1903. By H. G. Jones. (Chapel Hill: University of North 
Carolina Press, 1966. Preface, introduction, illustrations, bibliography, 
index. Pp. xvi, 319. $7.50.) 

This thoroughly researched, well-organized, clearly written, and 
highly readable volume tells the story of the public records of North 
Carolina from the issuance of the 1663 Charter to 1903, when the 
state established the North Carolina Historical Commission (now the 
State Department of Archives and History). Dr. Jones, who has been 
State Archivist since 1956— and an extremely competent one— dis- 
cusses in depth the creation, preservation, destruction, use, and publi- 
cation of public records for a period of two and a half centuries. 
By painstaking use of the original records about which he is writing, 
he has been able to confirm many— though not all— of the traditions 
relating to the neglect of North Carolina's public records. 

The author begins with an introductory statement defining "records" 
and emphasizing the fact that "records" become "archives" only when 
they are so designated by an appropriate authority. Part One of the 
volume has four chapters dealing with "The Public Archives, 1663- 
1903." In Chapters I and II: "Record Keeping in Proprietary Carolina, 
1663-1728," and "Record Keeping in the Royal Period, 1729-1776," 
Dr. Jones shows that some government officials realized the impor- 
tance of public records for administrative, legal, and historical pur- 
poses, "and many modern concepts of the care of official records are 
grounded in laws and traditions of the Colonial period." 

In Chapters III and IV: "War and Its Aftermath: Dislocation and 
Settlement, 1774-1794," and "The Vicissitudes of the Records, 1794- 
1903," the author discusses the laws governing the records; the re- 
peated moving of records due to changing the seat of government or 
because of threats brought on by war, such as the hitherto unknown 
story of the movement of the state records across the mountains to 
escape the British army in 1781, and the well-known story of the 
evacuation of the records from Raleigh as General Sherman ap- 
proached that city in 1865; the conditions of buildings housing the 

Book Reviews 299 

records and the calamities that befell them, such as the burning of the 
Capitol in 1831; the care or neglect with which custodians tended the 
records, and the efforts of individuals who sought to provide greater 
security for the records. Chapter IV, one of the best in the book, has 
four logical subdivisions: "The State Records in Raleigh, 1794-1861" 
( from the building of the Capitol to the state's secession ) ; "The Rec- 
ords and the War, 1861-1888" (it was not until the latter date that the 
federal government delivered North Carolina records in its possession 
to the state); "The Records in the Postwar Period, 1865-1903"; and 
"The Records of Counties and Municipalities, 1794-1903." The author 
is to be congratulated for his wisdom in discussing these significant 
though frequently overlooked records. 

Part Two, which will probably have the widest appeal to historians, 
is divided into three chapters and deals with the "Collection and 
Publication of the Records, 1843-1868," by George Chalmers, Hugh 
Williamson, Frangois Xavier Martin, Archibald D. Murphey, Joseph 
Seawell ("Shocco") Jones; John H. Wheeler, David L. Swain, and 
Francis Lister Hawks; and with William L. Saunders and The Colonial 
Records of North Carolina (1879-1891), and Walter Clark and The 
State Records of North Carolina (1893-1907). 

Part Three, "Caretakers for Clio, 1833-1907," is an extremely in- 
teresting account of the foundation of "Six Early Historical Societies, 
1833-1887," with special emphasis on the North Carolina Historical 
Society; "The Dispersal of the Swain Collection, 1880-1930"; and "The 
Establishment of a State Archival-Historical Agency, 1893-1907." 

The book also contains a selected bibliography and a thorough in- 
dex. Ten excellent illustrations, six of which are portraits (Williamson, 
Murphey, Swain, Wheeler, Saunders, and Clark), add to the attrac- 
tiveness of the volume. The endpaper, a "View of Raleigh, 1872," 
will be of interest to many of the book's readers. Dr. Jones has ren- 
dered a great service to the archival profession and also to state and 
local historians. 

Hugh T. Lefler 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Old Salem in Pictures. Photography by Bruce Roberts. Text by Frances 
Griffin. (Charlotte: McNally and Loftin, 1966. Foreword, illustrations. 
Pp. 64. $3.95.) 

James A. Gray's foreword to this charming black and white picture 
book says that it is intended "to recreate the mystique that was, and 

300 The North Carolina Historical Review 

is, Old Salem." Veteran photographer Bruce Roberts' eighty-six superb 
pictures (eighty-seven, counting the cover) are skillfully interwoven 
with eight and one-half pages of excellent text and exceptionally gen- 
erous captions by Salem publicist Frances Griffin to give the reader 
the illusion that he is actually seeing daily life in the eighteenth- 
century Moravian community— not in the twentieth-century restored 

No modern utility lines or motor cars are visible; the faces of men, 
women, and children are carefully chosen (and all are worth study); 
costumes are not too spick and span ( loose threads and wrinkles show 
here and there ) ; leaves drift across the diagonal brick walk in Salem 
Square— in short, it is Old Salem. 

Altogether, sixteen restored structures are shown, and architectural 
historians will enjoy studying the thousand and one structural details 
that are visible. Nine craftsmen are shown at their tasks, and both 
pictures and text emphasize the Moravians' painstaking regard for 
highest quality. Every bit as fascinating are the photographs of daily 
routine— the tavernkeeper welcoming his guests by lantern light to 
historic Salem Tavern, the watchman blowing his conch shell, an 
intent boy doing sums on a huge abacus. 

The fourth and closing section of the book, "The Spirit of Salem," 
focuses on "the simple day-to-day religion that was the heartbeat of 
early Salem [and] has remained unaltered through these two cen- 
turies"— the great Easter sunrise service in God's Acre, the Christmas 
Eve lovefeast by candlelight, and always music, trumpet, trombone, 
organ, and flute, for every occasion of faith and fellowship. 

A simple black and white map of Old Salem— useful and highly 
decorative— serves as endpapers for this attractive first picture book 
from restored Salem. 

Copies of the book may be ordered from the publisher. 

Mary Claire Engstrom 

38th Evac: The Story of the Men and Women Who Served in World War 
II with the 38th Evacuation Hospital in North Africa and Italy. By 
LeGette Blythe. (Charlotte: Heritage Printers, 1966. Foreword, calen- 
dar, illustrations, rosters, index. Pp. 261. $15.00.) 

Beginning with a lawn party in Charlotte on October 12, 1940, the 
author narrates the history of the 38th Evacuation Hospital from its 

Book Reviews 301 

organization and training, through its service in North Africa and 
Italy, to its dissolution in Florence on July 3, 1945. Although some of 
its original personnel came from other states, the nucleus of the unit 
was the Charlotte Memorial Hospital staff, a fact which explains the 
authors interest in the subject. Quoting copiously from letters, orders 
of the day, newspaper accounts, and reminiscences, Mr. Blythe re- 
counts in full every incident he could unearth about the men, women, 
and patients of the hospital unit. Sometimes the events are humorous, 
as that of the cook upsetting the dignity of a staid colonel; sometimes 
dramatic, as often occurred in the surgical tents during a heavy offen- 
sive; frequently pathetic when describing the war-torn towns; often 
sad when recounting the deaths of friends. The unit served during 
such famous battles as those of Oran, Anzio Beachhead, and Monte- 
catini, seeing duty continuously from November, 1942, to the end of 
the European combat. Around it all, Mr. Blythe has managed to 
create an atmosphere of heroism, of a difficult job done well in a 
casual American way, with praise from the famous war correspondent 
Ernie Pyle, and citations from commanding generals. A large number 
of snapshots, drawings of encampments, and a few magnificent studies 
by Margaret Bourke- White are reprinted. 

The researcher will question the lack of information as to the loca- 
tion of the letters and diaries cited. The reader will find the double- 
columned pages and the heavy book awkward to manage. The chief 
appeal will be to the personnel of the unit, who can here relive five 
years of their lives in minute detail. Barring the deposit of the quoted 
primary sources in an archives, however, the book will remain a full, 
well-indexed assemblage of the raw materials from which history will 
later be written. 

Copies of the book may be purchased at the Charlotte Bookshop. 

Sarah McCulloh Lemmon 
Meredith College 

Tar Heels Track the Century. By Pocahontas Wight Edmunds. (Raleigh: 
Edwards and Broughton Company, 1966. Introduction, illustrations, 
notes, index. Pp. viii, 355. $8.95.) 

The author, a Virginia writer, has painted charming pen portraits 
of ten North Carolinians who have made an imprint on the national 
arena since the Civil War. She begins and ends with voluntary ex- 
patriates: Andrew Johnson, "the only unschooled and only challenged 

302 The North Carolina Historical Review 

president," and Thomas Clayton Wolfe, "mountaineer in literature," 
and sandwiches in two others of this ilk: O. Henry (William Sydney 
Porter ) , "a tale teller of one city," and Walter Hines Page, "the intent 
editor and ambassador." The other six, with the possible exception of 
James Buchanan Duke, "the tycoon undertaking a university," were 
almost professional North Carolinians, fiercely loyal to the end: Zebu- 
Ion Baird Vance, "state's man and statesman"; Matt Whitaker Ransom, 
"courtly general and senator"; Charles Brantley Aycock, "the nation's 
educational governor"; Furnifold McLendel Simmons, "master of poli- 
tics"; and Josephus Daniels, "spokesman in three capitals." 

The parade of Tar Heels (which she does not capitalize) who 
tracked the last century thus consists of a United States president, 
two governors ( one a senator also ) , three senators ( one an ambassador 
to Mexico also), two editors (one an ambassador to Mexico and 
Secretary of the Navy and one an ambassador to the Court of St. 
James also ) , a short story writer, and a novelist. 

All save one— the cavalier Ransom— have had at least one full-length 
biography. Therefore, with this exception, the author has thrown 
little new light on her subjects and her research did not delve into 
any primary sources, except conversations with a few people closely 
connected with her subjects. Yet she has painted with roseate and 
sometimes flamboyant hues, delightful, impressionistic, off-beat 
sketches of those whom she chooses to include in her hall of fame. 
Perhaps the one most to be queried is the Tennessean Johnson. And 
perhaps his place might have been taken by the Pulitzer prize-winning 
playwright, novelist, and humanitarian, Paul Green; or the "good 
roads" governor, architect of university consolidation, and appointee 
to the Court of St. James, O. Max Gardner; or the university presi- 
dent, senator, and United Nations' mediator, Frank Porter Graham. 

For readers interested in a once-over-lightly treatment of these ten 
Tar Heels, here is the book. 

Blackwell P. Robinson 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

North Carolina Picadillo. By J. K. Rouse. (Salisbury: Rowan Business 
Forms, Inc., 1966. Illustrations, index, appendix. Pp. 112. $5.95.) 

This slender volume of high-gloss, letter-size pages is not just a 
picadillo but a loosely organized collection of picadillos— tender tid- 
bits and pleasing morsels gathered from the fruitful field of local his- 
tory in a tier of North Carolina's central Piedmont counties. 

Book Reviews 303 

A dozen or so of these picadillos comprise interesting biographical 
and family sketches about early settlers in Rowan, Cabarrus, Davie, 
and neighboring counties. Another dozen relate background of old 
churches and a variety of other historic sites— ancient homesteads, an 
old gold mine, the haunts of Daniel Boone and Peter Stewart Ney, 
and "Smithfield," the local version of the stately plantation house 
where George Washington slept during his tour of the South in 1791 
(authenticated, of course, by the first President's journal). The book 
has a few picadillos to delight every school of local history buffs, but 
the genealogists and those who like good pictures will be most pleased 
with it. 

Included are a few poems by Peter Stewart Ney, the Rowan school- 
master who is reputed to have been Napoleon Bonaparte's famous 
Marshal Ney. These poetic picadillos have legendary rather than 
historic interest. As to their literary merit, Marshal Ney's fame would 
better rest upon his military record. 

Varieties of type and format used in this volume range as widely as 
the subject matter. Most of the type is rather uncomfortably small, 
though of good quality. 

A fine feature of the book is its pictorial illustrations. Pictures are 
abundant, comprising in all thirty-seven items of which thirteen are 
full-page, and twelve are half-page in size. Pictorial subjects include 
old water mills, covered bridges, old homesteads, churches, memorials, 
public buildings, and sylvan scenes. Only one is a portrait. 

"The articles in this book are presented to give the reader a back- 
ward glance, with the sincere hope that it will inspire more interest 
in preserving the past for the future," the author states, by way of 
introduction. His well-documented assortment of interesting picadillos 
should well serve this purpose. 

Charles R. Holloman 

Department of Community Colleges 

Richmond at War: The Minutes of the City Council, 1861-1865. Edited by 
Louis H. Manarin. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 
[Official Publication No. 17, Richmond Civil War Centennial Commit- 
tee], 1966. Preface, introduction, illustrations, notes, appendixes, index. 
Pp. xii, 645. $12.50.) 

Occasionally a reviewer has an opportunity to comment upon a 
book which really arouses his interest. This volume is a splendid con- 

304 The North Carolina Historical Review 

tribution to knowledge, to local history, to scholars, to genealogists, 
and to anyone who likes to see a task well done. 

Publication of these minutes represents a dream completed for 
J. Ambler Johnston, the tireless chairman of the Richmond Civil War 
Centennial Committee and his loyal associates on that committee, who 
painstakingly and conscientiously guided the printing of twenty-six 
invaluable items, ranging from a splendid 1865 map of Richmond to 
these city council minutes. 

The volume includes the council's deliberations from April 5, 1861, 
through the terse entry for April 3, 1865: "The City was, on this day, 
occupied by the United States forces, and the Council did not, there- 
fore, meet." Between these two dates is recorded actions by the men 
who were charged with the government of the municipality which 
was the seat of government for the county of Henrico, the state of 
Virginia, and the Confederate States of America. The decisions of the 
council members reflect their zealous regard for states' rights, even 
municipal rights, when they stubbornly insisted upon their authority 
to direct their own affairs, to control their streets, and even to com- 
mand their defenses. 

These proceedings reflect the innumerable problems faced on the 
southern home front. The council even had to handle problems of 
drink and female camp followers, and it faced the tragedy of war's 
suffering soldiers and survivors. Although the gentlemen of the council 
were firm in their loyalty to the Old Dominion and the C.S.A., this 
attitude did not cause them to refrain from a pugnacious attention to 
the city's wartime needs. 

Early in the conflict they spent municipal funds to fortify and de- 
fend the city. Then, they did not hesitate to pay the costs of care for 
the wounded men in gray. Perhaps the most impressive work of the 
council, however, was its valiant effort to provide relief for the people 
who crowded the city. They assumed a local duty to regulate prices at 
food shops and provide food for the poor and needy at cost. The 
council attempted to balance financial ledgers amid raging inflation, 
an effort which consumed many hours of deliberation and anxiety. Law 
enforcement was another frequent item of discussion before the coun- 
cil and resulted in a number of confrontations with local Confederate 

Only a detailed summary could do justice to the many and varied 
topics covered in these minutes. It is not inappropriate to insist that 
this work includes the raw material for any observer to obtain a clear 
understanding of the problems home front residents faced during the 
war. Since Richmond almost was a combination of frontline and home 

Book Reviews 305 

front as well, this work is doubly valuable. The editor has done a 
splendid job in providing explanatory material and the University of 
North Carolina is to be congratulated for putting the notes at the foot 
of the page where they belong in a work of this nature. Manarin's 
notes are complete enough to provide adequate information but they 
are never oppressively wordy. There are many rare contemporary 
photographs and well-chosen prints from magazines of the war period 
to add to visual attractiveness and the academic utility of the volume. 
The appendixes include a number of city ordinances, plus brief but 
highly informative biographies of the members of the wartime city 
council. The index is copiously thorough, a proper appendage to a fine 

Haskell Monroe 

Texas A. & M. University 

Robert Toombs of Georgia. By William Y. Thompson. (Baton Rouge: 
Louisiana State University Press, 1966. Illustrations, bibliography, in- 
dex. Pp. xiii, 281. $7.50.) 

Robert Toombs (1810-1885), a regional and national figure during 
much of his lifetime, has been the subject of two previous biographies: 
Pleasant A. Stovall's Robert Toombs (New York, 1892) and Ulrich B. 
Phillips' The Life of Robert Toombs (New York, 1913). Stovall's vol- 
ume was an undisciplined treatment of the obstreperous Georgian by 
a friend, and in Phillips' penetrating examination of Georgia politics 
Toombs often became little more than a background character. 
Thompson's highly competent biography meets this generation's need 
for a study which incorporates the findings of recent scholarship about 
Toombs and his times. 

Thompson covers in fifty pages the salient aspects of Toombs' early 
life: his boyhood, his boisterous years at the University of Georgia, 
his later education after dismissal from the Athens institution, his 
early practice of law, his marriage, his service in the lower house of 
the Georgia legislature, and his first two terms in Congress. The re- 
maining two hundred pages are divided in almost equal measure be- 
tween Toombs' career in the 1850's and his later life. 

Appraising Toombs as intelligent, independent, and basically con- 
servative, Thompson believes that the Georgian failed to achieve 
greatness because of a "fatal flaw" which occasionally caused him, 
when under pressure, to "explode in any direction, after which he 

306 The North Carolina Historical Review 

would assemble the pieces and resume his former character." A strik- 
ing instance of the disassembling tendency, according to the biogra- 
pher, occurred at the time of Georgia's significant debate on the 
question of secession following Lincoln's election in 1860, when 
Toombs moved into the front lines of those who were demanding im- 
mediate withdrawal from the Union. 

Thompson believes that his subject deteriorated rather steadily dur- 
ing the trying years of war and Reconstruction. Pointing to Toombs' 
increasing dissatisfaction with President Davis' overall conduct of the 
war and with the Confederacy's military leadership (West Point 
generals in particular ) , the biographer finds little to commend in the 
Georgian's own wartime service. During the postbellum era Toombs 
refused to cooperate with the "New Departure" oligarchy's industrial 
program and became instead an unreconstructed champion of the old 
ideals centering around the "Lost Cause." Hence, Thompson con- 
tends, the unforgiving and unforgiven old rebel failed his state and 
section during a grim period. The stricture seems rather harsh to this 
reviewer, although it is balanced somewhat by words of praise for 
Toombs' contributions as constitution maker in 1877 and as legal 
counsel for the state in railroad litigation. One suspects that those less 
inclined than the author toward the liberal tradition might reach a 
markedly different final judgment of the man in whom many have 
seen "a flashback to the time when 'Georgia was Georgia.' ' 

Horace H. Cunningham 

University of Georgia 

Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., 1963- 
1965. Edited by Francis Coleman Rosenberger. (Washington, D.C.: 
Columbia Historical Society, 1966. Introduction, illustrations, member- 
ship roster, notes, indexes. Pp. xx, 513. $12.50.) 

The Columbia Historical Society was organized in 1894 to collect, 
preserve, and disseminate knowledge about the "history and topogra- 
phy of the District of Columbia and national history and biography." 
This third volume of its Records to appear under the editorship of 
Mr. Rosenberger is comprised of twenty-four papers, a chronicle of 
events for 1965, the report of the society's recorder, lists of officers and 
members, necrology, and indexes. The inclusion of indexes is a wel- 
come improvement over the two previous volumes, but the subject 
index is not comprehensive enough. 

Book Reviews 307 

The papers are arranged roughly chronologically by subject mat- 
ter. They begin with an account of the Washington area between 
1608 and 1708 and end with the "Goals of the Landmarks Committee" 
in 1964. 

Five of the pages are concerned with architecture and five with the 
Civil War. The interest in the Civil War is understandable. The presi- 
dent of the society, Major General U. S. Grant III, served as chairman 
of the Civil War Centennial Commission, and this volume spans three 
years of the centennial. 

The story of three generations of Clagetts and of the careers of two 
deceased local historians, John Clagett Proctor and his daughter 
Maude Proctor Callis, are the principal biographical articles. 

Culture and education are covered in papers on the Smithsonian 
Institution, the Washington Art Association, educational associations, 
and Gallaudet College for the deaf. 

Illustrations greatly enhance the articles on Victorian homes in 
Washington, the White House stables and garages, and "Old N Street 
in Georgetown." The work of Josephine Griffing with freedmen be- 
tween 1864 and 1872 is made more meaningful by photographs of the 
government barracks and shacks where they were housed. 

It is regrettable that the scholarship and style of several of the 
papers do not match in quality the handsome format of the volume. 
Mr. Rosenberger concedes in the Introduction that he has "perhaps 
been more permissive than scholarly discipline would dictate in ac- 
commodating the individual preferences of the authors." Several of 
the papers that were delivered before the society (a few were not) 
are better suited for inclusion in a reference work such as the Records 
than for delivery before an audience. In the future, the editor might 
well consider consigning the weaker papers to the archives of the 
society without benefit of publication. 

Mattie Russell 

Duke University 

Cotton Kingdom of the New South: A History of the Yazoo Mississippi 
Delta from Reconstruction to the Twentieth Century. By Robert L. 
Brandfon. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Preface, maps, 
bibliography, index. Pp. xiv, 227. $6.95.) 

Historians until recently have ignored the years between the end 
of Reconstruction and the beginning of the twentieth century. Yet 

308 The North Carolina Historical Review 

these were critical years in the history of the nation— "the Emergence 
of Modern America." For the South this neglect was almost total 
until the post- World War II years when graduate students were en- 
couraged to write state and local studies of the period. The monograph 
being reviewed here is one of such studies— a doctoral dissertation at 
Harvard University. It is a most successful study, and Harvard Uni- 
versity Press has done an excellent job of printing this volume. 

Professor Brandfon has a very acceptable style of writing. Indeed 
this reviewer found the volume to be very interesting as well as in- 
formative reading. The work is based on an exhaustive study of all 
available manuscript sources with special use of the materials derived 
from the Illinois Central Railroad archives deposited in the Newberry 
Library, Chicago; federal case files; and letters of Delta planters found 
in the Agricultural Division of the National Archives in Washington. 
Unfortunately, manuscript sources in the Mississippi Department of 
Archives and History for this period relating to this problem are both 
limited and unrevealing. The author has also made a careful study of 
all printed sources. Thus, both as researcher and writer he has per- 
formed his task admirably. 

Professor Brandfon has shown in this volume how a rich enclave, 
the Yazoo Mississippi Delta (the "once impenetrable frontier of allu- 
vial swamp"), came to be created in the midst of poverty after the 
Civil War and of the consequences that followed. "By the twentieth 
century, the largest of the planters of the Yazoo Delta were some of 
the wealthiest planters in the world. And they lived in Mississippi, 
the poorest state in the Union!" The study focuses on the various fac- 
tors that went into the development of the Delta and on the inter- 
action of these forces with the Delta's all-pervading concern for 
cotton growing. Improved river transportation, building of levees, 
stimulation of land values by speculation, introduction of outside 
capital, use of immigrant labor, and railroad building resulted, how- 
ever, in a prosperity for the Delta that accentuated the contrast be- 
tween it and neighboring deprived areas and deepened sectional divi- 
sions. This monograph will certainly lead to a better understanding of 
the "new political configurations that jolted the South" in the twentieth 

Professor Brandfon correctly maintains that the history of these few 
rich enclaves in the South is "the starting point for the history of the 
South in the twentieth century." This reviewer looks forward to the 
publication of similar studies fof the other areas of the South. 

John Edmond Gonzales 
University of Southern Mississippi 

Book Reviews 309 

The South Since Appomattox: A Century of Regional Change. By Thomas 
D. Clark and Albert D. Kirwan. (New York: Oxford University Press, 
1967. Illustrations, notes, index, bibliography. Pp. vii, 438. $7.50.) 

This book by two nationally known southern historians is a compre- 
hensive and balanced account of the South during the century since 
the end of the Civil War. With keen perception, wit, information 
abounding, and lively prose, it studies in depth the many forces work- 
ing to transform the South economically, politically, and socially since 
Appomattox. The book begins with an overall interpretative chapter 
on the New South and then moves chronologically through Recon- 
struction and the Agrarian Revolt. The remainder of the book, and 
the bulk of it, is developed topically running from agriculture through 
demagoguery and reform, industrialism, education, literature, the 
New Deal, the South in the electrical age, politics, the Negro, urbani- 
zation, the segregation decisions, the civil rights movement, and 
finally the evolving South. There is an excellent bibliography for each 
one of these topics at the end of the book. 

Professors Clark and Kirwan both know the South and its history 
as well as anyone and have written extensively about it, and this book 
is a product of their long years of work on the South. It is fortunate 
to have their mature and discerning judgments and keen insights and 
to learn from two masters what has been going on in the South in the 
hundred years since Appomattox. Though the authors write in a 
sympathetic and understanding manner, they condemn the South when 
it is necessary, for example, in its unwillingness to diversify and mod- 
ernize agriculture after the Civil War, in its efforts to deny the Negro 
his rights, and in the extremes of conduct among southern politicians. 

Some of the interesting conclusions in the book are: (1) The Re- 
deemers were not so much anti-farmer in outlook as they were neg- 
lectful of the farmer. (2) Fear of "Negro domination" was not the 
only reason for legal disfranchisement of the Negro. Voters in white 
sections also sought to curtail the over-representation which planta- 
tion counties had for their non-voting Negroes, and there was a 
genuine desire for democratic reforms. (3) The failure of southern 
farmers to keep abreast of technological improvements in farming, 
and the absence of home capital to purchase tools and supplies 
affected southern agriculture more significantly in the post-Civil 
War years than the destruction of property on southern farms 
during the war. (4) Despite the criticism made against the crop-lien 
system, it is a certainty the South after 1865 could not have carried on 
as well as it did without it. (5) The agragrian revolution and the 

310 The North Carolina Historical Review 

institution of the primary election were not responsible for bringing 
demagogues for the first time into southern politics. And (6) the so- 
called coalition in Congress between southern Democrats and northern 
Republicans in recent years is largely a myth. 

This is a splendid history of the South and every American should 
read it to understand better this section of the country. 

Vincent P. De Santis 
University of Notre Dame 

Technology in Early America: Needs and Opportunities for Study. By- 
Brooke Hindle. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 
1966. Foreword, directory of artifact collections, index. Pp. xx, 145. 

Guidebooks can be very helpful to the historian entering a new 
field, and this one is well done. It surveys the literature and the arti- 
fact sources for the study of American technology through the Colonial 
and national periods to 1850. It offers, too, many thoughtful comments 
on the nature, scope, and limits of technology as a focus for historical 
study. Brooke Hindle of New York University presents two essays, 
one interpretive and the other bibliographical. He wants to integrate 
the history of technology with other kinds of history. "The greatest 
need," he says, "is to stand at the center of technology— on the inside 
looking out," instead of "looking at technology through the eyes of 
science, economics, political reflections, social results, or literary an- 
tagonisms." The bibliographical essay deals with guides and sources, 
and with a long list of crafts and industries and with such related 
subjects as power, heat, light, electricity, and education. 

An accompanying essay by Lucius F. Ellsworth of the Eleutherian 
Mills-Hagley Foundation, entitled "A Directory of Artifact Collec- 
tions," discusses the writings on artifact collections and gives a long, 
classified, and annotated list of museums and their collections. As one 
who has tried to find some of these things without a guide, this re- 
viewer looks with much favor on such a publication. If one wants to 
know where mining relics such as picks, sledges, chisels, bits, and 
lamps are on display, page 104 indicates that the Bucks County His- 
torical Society of Doylesville, Pennsylvania, has them. Ice harvesting 
tools can be found in the Skenesborough Museum of Whitehill, New 
York. And so it goes. 

Book Reviews 311 

This is the fifth publication in the Needs and Opportunities for 
Study series of the Institute of Early American History and Culture. 
It grew out of a conference on October 15, 1965, sponsored by the 
institute and the Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation. 

James F. Doster 
University of Alabama 

Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume 2. Edited by William Bell 
Clark. (Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office for the Naval 
History Division, United States Navy Department [projected 15 vol- 
umes, 1964 — ] , 1966. Foreword, introduction, preface, appendixes, bibli- 
ography, index. Pp. xlvi, 1,463. $8.50.) 

Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume 2, is a continuation of 
the ambitious project of the Navy Department's Division of Naval 
History to collect, edit, and publish all available documentary evi- 
dence of the influence of sea power in the American Revolution. For 
inclusion in the first two volumes of the series, sixty-two depositories 
in the United States and abroad have been searched for every item 
which might bear even remotely upon waterborne operations, and the 
search for additional material continues. A few items were found in 
such a seemingly unlikely source as the Moravian Archives in Winston- 

As in Volume 1, the book is divided into sections pertaining to the 
American and European theaters of operations. Within each section 
material is chronologically arranged, covering a period of less than 
three months in the fall of 1775. During this brief span there were 
momentous developments on both sides of the Atlantic as the tempo 
of the war sharply increased. 

France continued to watch events with interest, and in Britain the 
voices of the doves of the period were drowned by the demands of the 
hawks that the rebellion be crushed. Vice Admiral Samuel Graves, 
with an inadequate force of obsolete and undermanned ships, was 
assigned the impossible task of blockading the American coast and 
supporting land operations. When he failed he was relieved of com- 
mand. Efforts to rebuild the navy were evidenced by orders to dock- 
yards to speed up delivery of new ships on order. 

Washington's little "navy" of schooners and other seagoing odds 
and ends achieved considerable success against British supply ships 
and influenced the Continental Congress to enact, on October 13, 

312 The North Carolina Historical Review 

1775, the first naval legislation in American history. The act provided 
for the procurement of a number of vessels and for their conversion 
to men-of-war. Lieutenant John Paul Jones hoisted the Grand Union 
flag over one of these ships, the "Alfred," in December, 1775. On 
November 10, 1775, Congress passed a resolution establishing the 
Marine Corps. 

Volume 2 includes a foreword by President Lyndon B. Johnson. It 
is well illustrated with photographs, charts, broadsides, and a variety 
of other items, and it contains an interesting pictorial essay of navi- 
gational facilities available during the period. There are also a number 
of interesting appendixes, including one containing records of the 
Port of Roanoke, North Carolina. An excellent index is provided. 

When the projected series of approximately fifteen volumes is com- 
pleted, historians, students, and readers in general will have available 
at their fingertips practically all surviving documentation dealing with 
the birth of the American Navy and the naval phase of the Revolution. 

A. M. Patterson 

State Department of Archives and History 

The American Naval Revolution. By Walter R. Herrick, Jr. (Baton Rouge: 
Louisiana State University Press, 1966. Illustrations, notes, bibliogra- 
phy, index. Pp. x, 274. $7.50.) 

The history of the United States Navy in the thirty-three years be- 
tween the Civil War and the war with Spain is a story of decline and 
resurgence. From a position of naval power in 1865, the United States 
entered a period of decline and deliberate reduction which left it in 
1880 one of the weakest navies in the world. The growth of the navy 
that defeated Spain in 1898 and that became Theodore Roosevelt's 
great white fleet is one of the most dramatic stories of the American 
past; it is with this story that Dr. Herrick deals. 

The history of the rise of the new navy is not a simple one; Dr. 
Herrick tells it well and understandably. It may be, however, that he 
has oversimplified it. The years after 1881, when the ships of the navy 
that defeated Spain were built, were complex. This was a time of 
nationalism and, indeed, of jingoism; this was the time of Alfred 
Thayer Mahan; this was the time of industrialism and of the growth of 
business. During these years frontier America came to an end; Popu- 
lism flared; and the United States turned outward. All of these ele- 
ments contributed to the rise of the new navy and to emphasize the 
role of Mahan, for example, is to oversimplify. 

Book Reviews 313 

Many people— politicians and professional navy men— were involved 
in what Herrick calls the revolution in the American navy. Certainly 
his implication that Secretary of the Navy Benjamin Tracy was pri- 
marily, if not solely, responsible for this development may properly be 
questioned. Tracy's role was important, but others were equally im- 

The documentation of the study is impressive and the Bibliography 
is extensive. This reviewer cannot help but wonder, however, why the 
general correspondence files of the Secretary of the Navy for the period 
beginning in 1885, which are now in the National Archives, were not 
used. There are also in the National Archives records of certain of the 
naval boards and commissions that functioned during and prior to the 
war with Spain; there is no indication that they were examined. The 
author has the distressing habit of citing citations in other secondary 
works, indicating the primary source to which the other author refers. 
In at least one such instance a quotation is incorrectly quoted and it 
does not appear on the page on which Dr. Herrick's footnote indicates 
that it does. 

The book contains a few annoying errors. For example, a picture 
identified as Theodore Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
(1897-1898), is actually a photograph of Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy ( 1921-1924) . 

Thornton W. Mitchell 

State Department of Archives and History 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the Presi- 
dent, 1965. Book I — January 1 to May 31, 1965. (Washington: United 
States Government Printing Office, for the National Archives, 1966. 
Foreword, preface, list of items, index. Pp. lxvii, 596, A-84. $6.25.) Book 
II — June 1 to December 31, 1965. (Washington: United States Govern- 
ment Printing Office, for the National Archives, 1966. List of items, 
appendixes, index. Pp. lxii, 597-1,206, A-84. $6.25.) 

In these books are gathered most of the public messages and state- 
ments of the thirty-sixth President of the United States that were 
released by the White House in 1965. Similar volumes are available 
covering the period November 22, 1963-December 31, 1964, and the 
administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. A 
volume covering the year 1966 is under preparation. Historians have 
reason to be grateful that the National Historical Publications Com- 
mission recommended the establishment of this official series in which 

314 The North Carolina Historical Review 

presidential writings and utterances of a public nature could be made 
promptly available. As in earlier volumes, the items are presented in 
chronological order. This arrangement together with a subject index 
enhances the serviceability of the work. 

Once again even the most casual reader is impressed by the enorm- 
ous range of problems and issues which confront the institution of the 
American Presidency. The reader is also reminded of the industry of 
the Eighty-ninth Congress and of the remarkable legislative record 
and "dedicated devotion" ( to use the President's words ) of that body. 

President Johnson's major formal addresses reveal the mind of a 
concerned, dedicated, decent, patriotic leader; a man with a strong 
moral bias and some sense of history. Yet surely none of the addresses 
approaches the eloquence and passion of Lincoln's Second Inaugural 
Address or Wilson's War Message. President Johnson's most engaging 
side is revealed in his informal remarks, toasts, notes of congratula- 
tions, and letters of condolences, and one comes to a new understand- 
ing of and liking for the man. The limitations of his awareness of the 
modern world are, however, also discernible, as for example in his 
answer to a press conference question concerning Vietnam: "I think 
I'll go back to my July statement and say that we are very anxious to 
have peace in that area of the world, and as soon as folks there are 
willing to leave their neighbors alone, why, we can have peace." 

Robert Moats Miller 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 


North Carolina Highways and Its Builders, Volume II, has been 
published by Superior Stone Company, Raleigh, and dedicated to the 
late president of the company, W. Trent Ragland, who conceived the 
idea for the book and saw Volume I through the press in 1952. The 
purpose of this second volume is to tell the story of roadbuilding in 
North Carolina in the fourteen-year interim and to introduce the gov- 
ernors, highway officials, contractors, and suppliers who have had a 
part in the development of the state's highways. This buckram-bound 
volume, designed and illustrated by Stuart Studio, Inc., of Greensboro, 
continues the nine-by-twelve format and is printed on an excellent 
grade of paper. The text was written by John Harden, author of The 
Devil's Tramping Ground and Tar Heel Ghosts, with the assistance of 
the staff of his public relations firm. The 252-page book is divided into 

Book Reviews 315 

four parts: "A History of North Carolina Roads to 1965," "North 
Carolina's Official Highway Organization," "Builders and Suppliers- 
North Carolina Highways," and "A Picture Story— North Carolina 
Roads and Highways." The first three sections are profusely illustrated, 
and the fourth is composed of ten pages of photographs which high- 
light the development of the state's highway system. There are two 
maps, an official highway map and a small sketch illustrating the pro- 
posed interstate system. Color photographs of the Herbert C. Bonner 
Bridge and of Interstate 40, advancing through Pisgah National Forest, 
make up the front and back endpapers respectively. An index to names 
is included. Copies of this handsome publication are being distributed 
by Mr. W. Trent Ragland, Jr., to those who have contributed to mak- 
ing North Carolina a "good roads" state. 

The Iredell County Committee of the National Society, Colonial 
Dames of America, has compiled and published Fourth Creek Me- 
morial Burying Ground, 1756, Statesville, North Carolina: History, 
Legends, Inscriptions, the major portion of which is an alphabetical 
listing of cemetery inscriptions dating from 1759 to approximately 
1888. The paperbound booklet, published in a four-by-nine format on 
a good quality of paper, includes a preface, which gives a brief history 
of the cemetery, a foreword, and lists of bibliographical sources and 
patrons. Copies may be purchased for $1.00 from the First Presby- 
terian Church office, the Public Library, the Chamber of Commerce, 
or from any member of the county committee of the Colonial Dames, 
Statesville, N.C. 

Steelmans: The Beloved School in the Pines, New Hope Baptist 
Church Community, Iredell County, by Tracy Caudle, is a brief his- 
tory of the school from its beginnings in 1880 to its abandonment in 
1924. The school was named for the author's grandfather, who gave 
the land and who, with J. L. Cain, constructed the one-room building. 
The 12-page pamphlet includes a sketch of and is dedicated to Miss 
Delia Arnold, one of Steelman's teachers. Also included is a photo- 
graph of the school and a listing of students for those years for which 
registers were available, as well as teachers' names and salaries, and 
titles of textbooks used. For information as to how copies of the book- 
let may be obtained, write to Mrs. Caudle at Route 2, Box 57-A ; 
Elkin, N.C. 

Mrs. Doris Futch Briscoe has begun what promises to be a useful 
source for historians and genealogists in her recent publication of 

316 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Mecklenburg County Court Minutes, Book I, 1774-1780. Mimeo- 
graphed in 194 pages and including an index to most of the names in 
the text, the paperbound volume is available for $10.00 from Mrs. 
Briscoe, 3137 Commonwealth Avenue, Charlotte, N.C., 28205. 

Rosser Howard Taylor, author of Carolina Crossroads, states in the 
Preface that "This is a book about the plain people of a crossroads 
village and vicinity in the South at the end of the horse-and-buggy 
era." Dr. Taylor, a professor emeritus of history at Western Carolina 
College, Cullowhee, has taken an affectionate look backward at the 
olden days and has made a record for posterity of his subjective evalu- 
ation of the way things were. In addition to 160 pages of text, there is 
a 12-page index. The book, which sells for $4.95, is illustrated and has 
a washable hard-cover binding. Copies may be purchased from the 
Johnson Publishing Company, Murfreesboro, N.C. 

A Time for Poetry: 1966 is an anthology of 128 poems written by 37 
members of the North Carolina Poetry Society and selected on a com- 
petitive basis by a panel of impartial judges from verse solicited from 
all members of the society. Varying widely in style, subject matter, 
and content, the poems in this volume should appeal to readers of 
divergent ages and backgrounds. Many of the selections have appeared 
previously in books, magazines, and newspapers. The clothbound 
volume, with many of its 185 pages half blank and a dust jacket which 
seems more utilitarian than poetic, sells for $4.50. Copies may be 
ordered from the publisher, John F. Blair, 404 North Carolina Na- 
tional Bank Building, Winston-Salem, N.C. 

The North Carolina Poetry Society has made available Award- 
Winning Poems, 1966, which includes prize poems from the society's 
five contests held during 1966. The 36-page booklet is bound in an 
attractive paper cover. Also available from the society are Award- 
Winning Poems, 1964-1965, and Past the Flame of Words, the latter 
of which is composed of the 1965 Brotherhood Contest poems. Any 
of the three titles may be purchased for $1.00 each or three copies for 
$2.75. Orders should be sent to North Carolina Poetry Society Books, 
Box 176, Burlington, N.C, 27215. 

The University of Chicago Press has initiated publication of a Classic 
American Historians series under the general editorship of Paul M. 
Angle, the purpose of which is to reprint selected writings from the 
works of nine great nineteenth-century historians [Henry] Adams, 

Book Reviews 317 

Bancroft, McMaster, Parkman, Prescott, Tyler, Bhodes, and Nicolay 
and Hay. Two volumes are at hand, Abraham Lincoln: A History, by 
John G. Nicolay and John Hay, abridged and edited by Mr. Angle, and 
History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, by James 
Ford Rhodes, abridged and edited by Allan Nevins. Mr. Angle has 
selected representative chapters from the Nicolay and Hay study of 
Lincoln, originally encompassing ten volumes, to make up a 393-page 
volume, which begins with a summary of the events leading up to 
Lincoln's election as president and concludes with the authors' ap- 
praisal of Lincoln's place in history. In addition to a 13-page introduc- 
tion, the editor has written a brief commentary to precede each chap- 
ter. For History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, 
Allan Nevins has selected chapters from the first five volumes of the 
original seven-volume study, to make up a 576-page volume which 
covers the period 1850-1865. Editor Nevins has supplied a 20-page 
introduction as well as a summary and commentary to precede each 
chapter. Both volumes include an index and bibliographical note; 
footnotes have been omitted. Prices for the clothbound and paper- 
bound editions of Abraham Lincoln: A History are $8.50 and $3.45, 
and for History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 
are $10.00 and $3.95, respectively. Order from the publisher at 5750 
Ellis Avenue, Chicago, 111., 60637. 

To commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of its establishment in 
1916, the Marine reserve officers of Public Affairs Unit 4-1 have writ- 
ten The Marine Corps Reserve: A History. The team of writers have 
kept the 311-page history readable and lively by interspersing anec- 
dotes, human interest stories, and 48 pages of photographs along with 
what could have been an interminable listing of personnel, numerical 
units, battles, geographical names, and statistics. Footnotes have been 
omitted, but for the benefit of researchers a documented and anno- 
tated copy of the history is available in the archives of the Historical 
Reference Section, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C. In 
addition to a foreword, introduction, and index, there are nine appen- 
dixes and a brief bibliographical note. Clothbound copies of the book 
may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 20402, at $3.50 each. 

A new report in the National Archives' Preliminary Report Series is 
Number 166, Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the National 
Park Service, compiled by Edward E. Hill. The 52-page inventory in- 
cludes a listing of the printed, written, photographic, sound, and carto- 

318 The North Carolina Historical Review 

graphic records relating to the National Park Service which are now 
being processed by the National Archives. Of particular interest to 
historians is a description of the records of the Potomac Company and 
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company which span a 130-year 
period from 1785 to 1938. This publication is available free of charge 
from the Exhibits and Publications Division, National Archives, Gen- 
eral Services Administration, Washington, D.C., 20408. 

Louisiana State University Press has issued a paperbound edition of 
American Negro Slavery, by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, which was first 
published in 1918. Those who question the wisdom of reprinting this 
venerable work at this time should reserve decision until after reading 
the Foreword to the new edition, "Ulrich Bonnell Phillips and His 
Critics," by Eugene D. Genovese. Genovese surveys briefly the im- 
portant works published on the subject of slavery during the last 
decade, but devotes much space to a critique of The Peculiar Institu- 
tion by Kenneth Stampp, which has replaced Phillips' work on many 
college syllabuses. Racism kept Phillips from being a great historian, 
says Genovese, but he concludes that ". . . Phillips, despite his bias, 
still has much to say to us, however much more remains to be said by 
a new generation. American Negro Slavery is not the last word on its 
subject; merely the indispensable first." Copies of the 524-page book, 
which includes an index, may be ordered from the publisher at Baton 
Rouge for $2.95 each. 

The North Carolina Historical Review is printed on Permalif e, a text 
paper developed through the combined efforts of William J. Barrow 
of the Virginia State Library, the Council on Library Resources, Inc., 
and the Standard Paper Manufacturing Company. Tests indicate that 
the paper theoretically has a useful life of at least 300 years. 


The Editorial Board of the North Carolina Historical Review is 
interested in articles and documents pertaining to the history of North 
Carolina and adjacent states. Articles on the history of other sections 
may be submitted, and, if there are ties with North Carolinians or 
events significant in the history of this state, the Editorial Board will 
give them careful consideration. Articles on any aspect of North Caro- 
lina history are suitable subject matter for the Review, but materials 
that are primarily genealogical are not accepted. 

In considering articles, the Editorial Board gives careful attention 
to the sources used, the form followed in the footnotes, and style in 
which the article is written, and the originality of the material and its 
interpretation. Clarity of thought and general interest of the article 
are of importance, though these two considerations would not, of 
course, outweigh inadequate use of sources, incomplete coverage of 
the subject, and inaccurate citations. 

Persons desiring to submit articles for the North Carolina Historical 
Review should request a copy of The Editors Handbook, which may 
be obtained free of charge from the Division of Publications of the De- 
partment of Archives and History. The Handbook contains informa- 
tion on footnote citations and other pertinent facts needed by writers 
for the Review. Each author should follow the suggestions made in 
The Editor s Handbook and should use back issues of the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review as a further guide to the accepted style and 

All copy should be double-spaced; footnotes should be typed on 
separate sheets at the end of the article. The author should submit an 
original and a carbon copy of the article; he should retain a second 
carbon for his own reference. Articles accepted by the Editorial Board 
become the property of the North Carolina Historical Review and 
may not have been or be published elsewhere. The author should in- 
clude his professional title in the covering letter accompanying his 

Following acceptance of an article, publication will be scheduled in 
accordance with the established policy of the Editorial Board. Since 
usually a large backlog of material is on hand, there will ordinarily be 
a fairly long period between acceptance and publication. 

The editors are also interested in receiving for review books relating 
to the history of North Carolina and the surrounding area. 

Articles and books for review should be sent to the Division of 
Publications, State Department of Archives and History, Box 1881, 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 


North Carolina Stat* Library 

Raleigh ^ ~ 


*i¥i4to>Ucal 'Review 

/futiOKH t967 

The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Miss Marie D. Moore, Editorial Associate 


John Fries Blair 
Miss Sarah M. Lemmon 

William S. Powell 
David Stick 

Henry S. Stroupe 


Josh L. Horne, Chairman 
Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway 
T. Harry Gatton 
Fletcher M. Green 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

Ralph P. Hanes 

Hugh T. Lefler 

Edward W. Phifer 


This review was established in January, 1924, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may 
be obtained from Kraus Reprint Corporation, 16 East 46th Street, New York, New 
York, 10017, or on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without 
special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to the North Caro- 
lina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department 
of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. Mailing address is Box 1881, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
27602. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina, 27602. 

COVER — This large storage jar was found in fragments on the floor of 
"Russellborough" at Brunswick Town and was restored by the archaeo- 
logical staff of the State Department of Archives and History. For an 
article on the history of " 'Russellborough' : Two Royal Governors' Mansion 
at Brunswick Town," see pages 360 to 372. Photograph supplied by Stan- 
ley A. South. 


7<^ %>nt6, 0cvi<Ui*t* 

Volume XLIV Published in October, 1967 Number 4 



Robert B. Murray 


James R. Morrill 



Stanley A. South 


Durward T. Stokes 


Hugh G. Earnhart 




Lonsdale and Others, Atlas of North Carolina, 

by Christopher Crittenden 400 

Mitchell, Messages, Addresses, and Public Papers of Terry Sanford, 

Governor of North Carolina, 1961-1965, by Oliver H. Orr, Jr. . . .401 

Evans, Ballots and Fence Rails: Reconstruction on the Lower Cape 

Fear, by Herbert O'Keef 402 

Malvin, North Into Freedom: The Autobiography of John Malvin, 
Free Negro, 1775-1880; and 

Walser, The Black Poet, being the remarkable story (partly told 
my [sic] himself) of George Moses Horton, a North Carolina 
slave, by Thomas D. Clark 403 

Bowles, A Good Beginning: The First Four Decades of the 
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 
by Mary Lynch Johnson 405 

Walsh, The Writings of Christopher Gadsden, 17U6-1805, 

by J. Edwin Hendricks 407 

Sherman, Robert Johnson: Proprietary & Royal Governor of 

South Carolina, by James K. Huhta 408 

Middleton, Henrietta Johnston of Charles Town, South Carolina: 

America's First Pastellist, by Ben F. Williams 409 

Samford and Hemphill, Bookbinding in Colonial Virginia, 

by William S. Powell 410 

Isaac, Jefferson at Monticello: Memoirs of a Monticello Slave; and 
Pierson, Jefferson at Monticello: The Private Life of Thomas 

Jefferson, by Noble E. Cunningham, Jr 411 

Boney, John Letcher of Virginia: The Story of Virginia's Civil 

War Governor, by Richard D. Younger .412 

White, Messages of the Governors of Tennessee, Volume II, 

1883-1899, by James W. Patton 413 

Coulter, The Toombs Oak, The Tree That Owned Itself, and 

Other Chapters of Georgia, by Sarah McCulloh Lemmon 415 

Eertelson, The Lazy South, by Edwin A. Miles 416 

CROWE, The Age of Civil War and Reconstruction, 1830-1900: 

A Book of Interpretative Essays, by Richard N. Current 418 

Spain, At Ease in Zion, by Roger H. Crook 419 

Wynes, Forgotten Voices: Dissenting Southerners in an Age of 

Conformity, by Allen J. Going 420 

Anderson, With the Bark On: Popular Humor of the Old South, 

by David L. Smiley 421 

Dillon, Benjamin Lundy and the Struggle for Negro Freedom, 

by Philip Davidson 422 

Ludlum, Early American Winters, 160U-1820, by Beth Crabtree 423 

Steinberg, The First Ten: The Founding Presidents and Their 

Administrations, by Gilbert L. Lycan 424 

Langley, Social Reform in the United States Navy, 1789-1862, 

by Alvin A. Fahrner 425 

Shannon, The Centennial Years: A Political and Economic History 
of America from the Late 1870' s to the Early 1890 f s, 
by James A. Tinsley 426 

Link, Davidson, and Hurst, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 

Volume II, 1881-1884, by Robert F. Durden 427 

Kirkendall, Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of 

Roosevelt, by Stuart Noblin 429 

Pine, The Story of Surnames and The Story of Heraldry, 

by C. F. W. Coker 430 




By Robert B. Murray* 

The date of the legal end of the Civil War affected the legal rights 
of thousands of loyal Americans. It was therefore of vital importance 
that the precise end of that conflict be determined. 

In a foreign war the treaty of peace is evidence of the time of the 
wars termination. But what determines the time of ending of a 
domestic conflict? This question was answered by the United States 
Supreme Court in its December, 1869, term in the case of United 
States v. Anderson. 1 

What brought the case to the Supreme Court? Who was Anderson? 
What guides did the court use to determine the legal end of the con- 
flict? The answers to these and other questions show the inclination 
of the court to treat with liberality those who had remained loyal to 
the United States throughout the conflict— even those who had lived 
in the South. 

Congress had provided for the establishment of a Court of Claims 
in February, 1855, and persons whose property had been taken for 
public use were entitled to file suit for recovery in the court. When the 
Court of Claims was established, provision was made for three judges; 
in March, 1863, its membership was increased to five. 2 

After passage of the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 
March 12, 1863— the key statute in the Anderson case— the Court of 
Claims soon found itself handling a large number of the so-called 
"cotton cases." Under the provisions of the enactment, the Secretary 
of the Treasury was authorized "to appoint a special agent or agents 
to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property in any state 
or territory . . . designated as in insurrection. . . ." 3 Such property was 
to be appropriated to public use or forwarded to a loyal state where 
it was to be sold. Sales were to be by auction, and proceeds were to 

* Mr. Murray is an attorney in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

1 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56 (1869). 

2 Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (Berkeley and Los Angeles: 
University of California Press [Volume L of University of California Publications in 
History, edited by J. S. Galbraith, R. N. Burr, and Brainerd Dyer], 1955, 34, here- 
inafter cited as Klingberg, Southern Claims Commission; 10 Stat. 612, c. 122; 12 Stat. 
765, c. 92 [s. 1]. 

"12 Stat. 820, c. 120 [s. 1]. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

felnitei States 

of . : '/»iC * 

r \\ . u. \.^'i 

Jn pnrsuanrc *///,&&,/ r z: hft , t / -,/ ,/ -;v:,^, y , /^. ^/^ / 

"4c ra/f u/t< ti any / < f ZZ">;< < / *>/>>, , > < , <■ ,' , , , , „ ,,,<* , ,/ < 

- .- . > { ' - ,,< ) r , I y, ,<',.,, 

Hi- Lijf/"Jtt . <t ,,/■ i/, /, , „ / ,',/,,,' >?<,,,/, , / ,' , , , ; 

it tpf-u/a It t/</rtt* f .//i 4i 4/f >>>'f <>,/<■>/ ,, >. o i ';>> '• ■ " > ,< ; / 

/«^ &Z ZJ , , 4,h «.><*><>/ * /// 4/vi , Z >/.<</ / c -s V J / i \ </ 

'^'/atm.K Zh>/ Z- <* " 'f Sf&fr" ,. ,,, f .', <<, < . / ~*m+~u*j*~*~~^^ 


Ze m Za C 

i'^Mvfy/s.-^ , ' < 

4r>^ £&<&sr€'. 


£>-/ 1 >cUJ /.S? ' JtTjl-2 -I Ci^// CTislJ £/x i. &Z.J 


y \0 ' / f/i 



; t?/Z . / 

Zfe-Z/. &*. / ft -> </ / rO j~- Zs// n/,?;< ,*Z /*~ Zcton 
/ ' % " 

J^cZ, AZu: Z!a,-j7i.Cy </crr~ o--y t <?l o, ' aefctX' ,z r-/ Z/; 

Z 0? i c ft" cA <* V^ < T - ^ / - v r; • J j v <> /, ' ZZ ^ / ZZ/> / .-. ,- * , ; t 

, Z . ,, 

a^e&/?/<uc/> <ec< , /? >r ZZ/Zy J 'i /:,* - Z<'*rtj>ci r c:?Z ' ■ Z 

'/// **?/'<< t<'Z' c , s.ZC**'/'^ Z*Ai As* j > *«'">><. . - - : 



<^- &C141 <>■<:/ A 


■■■'/" - / ' i. V • 


... .. . •-...., 

The End of the Rebellion 



The Treasury Department and War Department records, left and above, were in- 
troduced in evidence during the hearing of the Anderson case before the Court of 
Claims. Reproduced from microfilm of Anderson case in National Archives, Washing- 
ton, D. C. 

be paid into the federal treasury. 4 The Secretary of the Treasury was 
to keep a book of accounts showing from whom property was received, 
the costs of transportation, and the amount of the proceeds. The law 
further provided: 

And any person claiming to have been the owner of any such abandoned or 
captured property may, at any time within two years after the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the court 
of claims ; and on proof to the satisfaction of said court of his ownership 
of said property, of his right to the proceeds thereof, and that he has 
never given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, to receive the resi- 
due of such proceeds, after the deduction of any purchase-money which 
may have been paid, together with the expense of transportation and sale 
of said property, and any other lawful expenses attending the disposition 
thereof. 5 

4 12 Stat. 820, c. 120, s. 2. 
6 12 Stat. 820, c. 120, s. 3. 

324 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Under the provisions of the Act of March 12, 1863, many claimants 
filed petitions seeking relief from the federal government, and one of 
these was the drayman and cotton sampler by the name of Nelson 
Anderson. The census of 1860 listed 1,455 free men of color in Charles- 
ton, South Carolina; 6 in his petition to the Court of Claims, which was 
filed on June 5, 1868, Anderson alleged that he was "a citizen of the 
United States of color." He had owned 38 bales of upland cotton and 
10 bales of Sea Island cotton which he had purchased at various 
times in 1863 and 1864. Part of the cotton had been stored on the 
farm of one Dr. North on Charleston Neck and part at his own home 
at 33 Ashley Street in Charleston. On March 8, 1865, Anderson had 
dutifully reported the condition and location of his cotton to the 
military authorities as he was required to do. The cotton was seized, 
taken by the federal government agents about the middle of April, 
1865, marked "N Anderson # 169," shipped to New York, consigned to 
Simeon Draper, and sold, with the proceeds being paid into the United 
States treasury. Though he was not aware of the exact amount of the 
proceeds, Anderson brought a claim for the exact sum realized, what- 
ever that might be, over and above costs. He further alleged that he 
had not given aid or encouragement to the rebellion, that the property 
had never been that of the Confederate government, and that he was 
the bona fide purchaser. Anderson signed the petition with his mark, 
giving his post office address as Summerville, South Carolina. The 
petition was filed by T. J. D. Fuller, solicitor, with a Washington, 
D.C., address. 7 

Anderson's lawyer was a native of Vermont who had represented 
Maine in the United States House of Representatives from 1849 to 
1857. He had served as second auditor of the treasury from 1857 to 
1861 and was practicing law after the war before both the Court of 
Claims and the Supreme Court in Washington. 8 Fuller handled num- 
erous cotton cases before the Court of Claims. 9 At the time of filing 
the petition for Anderson, Fuller also sought an order of court to obtain 

8 Joseph C. G. Kennedy, Population of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the 
Original Returns of the Eighth Census, Under the Direction of the Secretary of the 
Interior (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1864), 449. 

7 Petition of Nelson Anderson to Court of Claims, filed June 5, 1868, microfilm copy 
of Court of Claims record of case of Anderson v. United States, National Archives, 
Washington, D.C, hereinafter cited as Anderson Petition; microfilm documents from 
original Court of Claims record will hereinafter be cited as National Archives record. 

8 Who Was Who in America: Historical Volume, 1607-1896 (Chicago: A. N. Marquis 
Co., 1963), 193, hereinafter cited as Who Was Who. 

9 See opinions in Volumes III and IV of United States Court of Claims Reports. 

The End of the Rebellion 325 

copies of the papers in the Treasury and War departments relating to 
the claimant's cotton. 10 

On June 8, 1868, the Treasury Department submitted a report in- 
dicating that there was no information 

other than that all the cottons captured by the military forces of the 
United States, at Charleston, in the state of South Carolina, were turned 
over, without any identification of separate lots, to Simeon Draper, "U.S. 
Cotton Agent at New York, who sold the same for and on account of the 
United States Government ; that the average net proceeds for each bale, as 
nearly as can be ascertained, are $131 20/100 for Upland and $237 64/100 
for Sea Island Cotton, the same being estimated on a currency basis. 11 

The transcript from the War Department record showed in the 
Anderson account for March 29 a total of 28 bales of cotton on a 
farm near the race course and 20 bales at 33 Ashley Street; the April 5 
record showed 44 bales of upland and 4 of Sea Island cotton stored 
at the custom house. 12 

An answer to the petition was filed by the government on June 30, 
1868. The United States, as defendant, denied all of Anderson's alle- 
gations, including those of obligation to pay for the cotton and of 
loyalty of the claimant. The answer also averred that the petition had 
not been filed within two years after suppression of the rebellion as 
required by the Act of March 12, 1863; the contention was also made 
that Anderson, at the time he filed his petition, was an alien. 13 A 
later plea of alienage cited a congressional act of July 27, 1868, which 
prohibited an alien from filing a claim against the United States in 
any court under the March 12, 1863, act and which had been passed 
to defend the treasury against unlawful claims. The government also 
argued that Andersons cotton had been lawfully seized under the 
March 12, 1863, statute. 14 The plea of alienage was signed by T. Lyle 
Dickey, who served as assistant attorney general of the United States 
from 1868 to 1870. 15 

The rules of practice of the Court of Claims provided for the ap- 

10 Order of court upon Departments of Treasury and War, June 5, 1868, National 
Archives record. 

11 Treasury Department record, signed by H. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury, 
June 8, 1868, filed June 11, 1868, National Archives record, hereinafter cited as 
Treasury record. 

12 Certified copy of entries from War Department book marked "A Registration 
Book Charleston Cotton," signed by James A. Blue, July 6, 1868, filed July 9, 1868, 
National Archives record, hereinafter cited as War Department record. 

13 Answer of Defendants, by John J. Weed, Assistant Solicitor for the United States, 
filed June 30, 1868, National Archives record. 

14 Plea of Alienage, signed by T. Lyle Dickey, Assistant Attorney General, filed 
December 21, 1868, National Archives record; 15 Stat. 243, c. 276, s. 2. 

16 Who Was Who, 149. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 


«y ■&%,«?>& *■?■<**■■ c-* 'y /■&-£■*$ 4r**„. c&t*i»*^,*ts%M*#r% r% __, **? <tm^HtHi. y^W'-t 

*s *C 


£4, 1 1 1 -vitx^<^^t. f -x^£** Ay f* 

/XVv/y t^fl^t,,/- /£*(J&0 rfJ &4jkdj0t^^^ 

yft^rtix. Y^tet./^-/ Jt*€^t£, 1 / /^ ^ * / <?* Art 1 / <-€-ftfii 

&■£**, tsvt €^rvC4n^ //#/ &e-t+. M*l£l* &**,4 tJ f?<^ &$&<£*«** 

/>) §&*■■€<<*. &&L £ZLsL4s% if**-- '£€***^-- &~*0L****<~ <*£^Uty>- **^ 

€< <r* / 


^ *£o*f Qm^£ ^^Z\^tt^m^^7 <' «-*& t C*f>t<Jju.« 

\ _^rVt<^t. , #1 ' K ~ftLt.-%<%- H,<-*^ 4e~4?~€£ •*■%.«<. **.>~ri~* f*<. ^>n- *- ^ *' X *»C4 

The first page of Nelson Anderson's deposition gives details concerning his acquisi- 
tion of cotton and its later seizure by United States officials. Reproduced from micro- 
film of Anderson case in National Archives, Washington, D. C. 

The End of the Rebellion 327 

pointment of a permanent commissioner and special commissioners 
as needed to take testimony. 16 Under these rules of the court William 
Gurney, a commissioner stationed in Charleston, South Carolina, took 
depositions in the case on June 23 and 24, 1868. Anderson, his local 
counsel H. H. Byron, and the government's Charleston attorney 
W. James Whaley were present for the hearings at which the claimant 
and six witnesses testified. Though his testimony was later ruled in- 
competent by the court, Anderson's deposition gave in some detail 
information about his life as well as the circumstances surrounding 
his purchase of cotton. He was fifty years old, a lifelong resident of 
Charleston until the preceding Christmas when he had moved to 
Summerville. He had been a cotton sampler by trade and had bought 
cotton from both Phillip M. Doucen and Daniel F. Fleming. Both of 
these men appeared as witnesses for Anderson, testifying that they 
had known him for years, had sold cotton to him, and had been paid 
the market rate. They verified Anderson's testimony concerning his 
employment by local firms engaged in various aspects of the cotton 
business. The cotton purchased from Fleming had been damaged, 
but Anderson had taken it to the race ground, dried and packed it, and 
rebaled it into ten bales. The claimant explained that he had worked 
as a cotton sampler to Caldwell, Blake, and Company and had been 
paid ten cents a bale for each bale he had repaired. 17 

On March 8, 1865, following the evacuation of Charleston by the 
forces of the Confederacy, Anderson reported to the United States 
military authorities, and his cotton was seized and shipped to New 
York in April. 18 Anderson testified that when "they" called for him, 
he packed his cotton and went with it the whole way to the custom 
house. 19 At the rate of $131.20 for upland and $237.64 for Sea Island 
cotton, Anderson's forty-eight bales were sold for $6,723.36. 20 

The Captured and Abandoned Property Act of March 12, 1863, by 

16 Rule XIX of "Rules of Practice of the Court of Claims," preceding reported cases 
in Volume III of United States Court of Claims Reports. 

17 Depositions of Nelson Anderson, Phillip M. Doucen, and Daniel F. Fleming, June 
23-24, 1868, National Archives record, Anderson's deposition hereinafter cited as 
Anderson Deposition. It is of interest that the commissioner notified those concerned 
on June 5 that depositions would be taken on June 22. On June 22 the claimant and 
his witnesses did not appear and the hearings were adjourned without question until 
the next day. See National Archives record. Doucen's name is spelled in various ways 
in the original documents, but the spelling used here is that used in the Supreme Court 
opinion. See also the deposition of Richard D. Hart, June 23, 1868, who was employed 
by military authorities to mark cotton and who had marked Anderson's cotton. 

18 Anderson Petition. 
"Anderson Deposition. 

20 See Treasury and War Department records. There was some controversy over 
the determination of the actual amount owed Anderson, but this matter is irrelevant 
to the discussion of the case here. 

328 The North Carolina Historical Review 

providing for the sale of cotton and other products such as sugar, rice, 
and tobacco, 21 endeavored to assure basic commodities for use in the 
North where they were in short supply while at the same time de- 
priving the South of products which constituted the backbone of its 

The 1863 law provided, however, that if any of the items actually 
confiscated under* the act were owned by individuals who had re- 
mained loyal to the Union, the net proceeds of the sales were to be 
paid to them. 22 Anderson's petition alleged that he had not given aid or 
encouragement to the rebellion but had desired its overthrow and 
suppression. In his testimony he stated that he had always been loyal 
to the United States and had opposed the rebellion, that he had never 
worked in favor of the Confederates and they did not make him work 
on any batteries, that he had only "minded" some cotton for them 
once but they would not pay. He added that they said they would 
give him 100 lashes in pay. Anderson emphasized, on redirect exami- 
nation, that he did not "mind" the cotton voluntarily, but that he had 
to do the work against his will when ordered by the Confederates to 
do so. 


Nelson Anderson's loyalty was proved by the testimony of other 
witnesses. John L. Fennick, also a Negro, testified that he was a 
cotton dealer and had known Anderson for twenty-three or twenty- 
four years and had often talked with him during the war. He knew 
that the claimant had been loyal, testifying: 

I heard him say in the early part of the war at the time of the Bombard- 
ment of Fort Sumter, that he "was sorry to see it and he hoped [Robert] 
Anderson would be successful." During the war we spoke to each other 
often, and when we heard of a Battle in which the Union forces were 
not successful he always grieved over it. He often expressed to me a wish 
that he could assist the Union Force. This was his tone up to the time I 
left him. 

On cross-examination Fennick, who declared himself to be a loyal 
man, added, "I only heard him speak of his loyalty I never saw him 
do anything to prove it." 24 

Two other Negroes also attested to the loyalty of Anderson, and 
one of them offered evidence of tangible aid to the enemy's prisoners. 
William Miller, who had known Anderson from boyhood, was in the 
employment of the Freedman's Bureau. During the war he had often 

«-? § tat - 821 > c - 120 > s - 6 ; Klingberg, Southern Claims Commission, 32-33. 

22 12 Stat. 820, c. 120, s. 3. 

^Anderson Petition and Deposition. 

24 Deposition of John L. Fennick, June 24, 1868, National Archives record. 

The End of the Rebellion 329 

talked with Anderson and knew that he wanted to see the rebellion 
crushed. He said Anderson had given him $10 or $20 in Confederate 
money to be used to help prisoners from the "Isaac P. Smith" and from 
Morris Island and had offered to give more if it were needed. He added 
that before more could be given the "Commanding General" put a 
stop to it. On cross-examination the witness testified that Anderson 
sometimes expressed himself before white men but "appeared to be 
on the good side of them. They took no notice of it in him where if it 
had been me they would have lashed me." The affiant told of rais- 
ing $200 to be given to the imprisoned men. 25 

The other affiant was John F. Robertson, a man who had known 
Anderson during the war, who expressed certainty as to the claimant's 
loyalty by telling of an inoident in which some men running the 
blockade had wanted to buy cotton from Anderson; Anderson had 
refused to sell. Robertson had worked with the petitioner and knew 
that he had had cotton; he testified that he had marked forty-eight 
bales without being paid or expecting pay for the work. 26 

Members of Congress realized that most of the individuals who had 
lived in the South and remained loyal would find it impossible to file 
claims during the war; it was for this reason that the act provided that 
persons would have two years after the close of the conflict to file their 
claims. 27 The first cases involving cotton claims were heard in the 

25 Deposition of William Miller, June 24, 1868, National Archives record. 

26 Deposition of John F. Robertson, June 24, 1868, National Archives record. The 
question of loyalty was the issue in many cases before the Court of Claims. The court 
tended to be liberal in finding a claimant to have been loyal to the Union throughout 
the war. A favorable verdict was rendered the claimant where he did patrol duty in 
the home guard at night, the court holding that this duty was forced on him and was 
police, not military, duty, Cornelius B. Miller et al. v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 288 
(1868) ; where the director of a bank had subscribed to a Confederate loan drive and 
whose bank had subscribed, the court finding that the directors were afraid they 
would be removed if they failed to subscribe and that the loans had been made in 
Confederate money, that the claimant had been placarded in the streets as a public 
enemy because of his reluctance to subscribe to the loan, and that the bank was under 
the influence of northern men and was called the "Yankee Bank," and that the claim- 
ant had sold his bonds in about two weeks, these facts determining the outcome de- 
spite the fact that the claimant had two sons in the Confederate army, Edward 
Padelford v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 316 (1868) ; where a river pilot was cap- 
tured and made to live in the insurrectionary area a year, Henry A. Ealer v. United 
States, 4 C CI. Rep. 372 (1868) ; where a man refused to bear arms against the 
United States but did serve in the fire patrol of Charleston subject to call as a home 
guard and who had obtained merchandise through the blockade for his friends, family, 
and Union prisoners, Charles J. Quinby v. United States, 4 C CI. Rep. 417 (1868) ; 
where a claimant had a son in the Confederacy and occasionally contributed to Con- 
federate soldiers and was a member of the home guard who actually went out in 
arms against Stoneman, the court holding that he had been ordered to resist as 
Stoneman approached Macon, Asher Ayers v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 422 (1868). 

27 12 Stat. 820, c. 120, s. 3. 

330 The North Carolina Historical Review 

December, 1866, term of the Court of Claims. 28 Because the act estab- 
lished a trust fund, no specific appropriation was required for this 
category of claims, and the awards by the Court of Claims showed the 
lenient attitude adopted by the court toward those claiming compen- 
sation from the federal government. 29 

The case of Anderson v. United States was heard by the Court of 
Claims at its December, 1868, term. Chief Justice Joseph Casey's 
opinion indicated the court's finding of Anderson's ownership of the 
property, his loyalty, and his compliance with the law in filing his 
claim within the two years as prescribed by the 1863 statute. 30 

In cases involving claims in excess of $3,000 either the claimant or 
the government had the right to appeal to the United States Supreme 
Court; after the passage of another act on June 25, 1868, the govern- 
ment was permitted to appeal any decision adverse to it in the Court 
of Claims. 31 Under these provisions there were many cases from the 
Court of Claims which could have been appealed, and it is not known 
why government attorneys chose Nelson Anderson's case for appeal; 
it was probably selected because of the number of pertinent points 
raised in the particular case. Questions of ownership, admissibility of 
testimony, loyalty, and the statute of limitations were all raised before 
the Court of Claims, and the answers to these questions would affect 
the rights of hundred of others seeking relief under the Captured and 
Abandoned Property Act of March 12, 1863. 

Consequently, on May 22, 1869, the United States attorneys moved 
for an allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court, and an order allow- 
ing the appeal was granted by the Court of Claims in Washington on 
May 24. The transcript of the record was sent up to the high court and 
arguments were heard at the December, 1869, term. The opinion was 
affirmed on February 28, 1870. 32 The Court of Claims record shows 
that, for the purpose of the appeal, the Anderson case was combined 
with three others. Arguments were consolidated and the Supreme 
Court, in handing down the Anderson opinion, at the same time dis- 
posed of all of these cases. 33 

28 See Margaret Bond v. United States, 2 C. CI. Rep. 529 (1866), in which the 
claimant was awarded $2,823.75, and a list of thirteen other cases with the sums 
awarded in each on 535-536 of Volume III of the United States Court of Claims 

29 Klingberg, Southern Claims Commission, 35. 

30 Nelson Anderson v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 467 (1868). 
M 12 Stat. 766, c. 92, s. 5; 15 Stat. 75, c. 71 [s. 1]. 

32 See transcript of record and supporting documents in National Archives record ; 
United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56 (1869). 

33 The printed Supreme Court opinion does not actually name the three additional 
cases, but the National Archives record does. 

The End of the Rebellion 331 

The three cases heard with the Anderson case were those of Stanton 
v. United States* 4 Pollard v. United States, 35 and Kohn v. United 
States. 36 The Stanton case involved cotton saved by an overseer and 
hidden until it was seized in October, 1862, and sold by the federal 
government. The claimants were three children, heirs of one Frederick 
Stanton, whose wife was guardian of minor children. The question 
of loyalty of the mother and children was involved; the Court of 
Claims decided that proof of loyalty was not so strong as if the chil- 
dren had been older but that there was no proof of acts of disloyalty. 
The family had the reputation of being Union people, and the court 
found they were entitled to recover $51,696. 16. 37 

The Pollard case also raised the question of loyalty. William Pollard 
was, like Anderson, a Negro. Proof existed that he had harbored 
Union prisoners, aided their escape, helped Union men escape from 
serving in the rebel army, and helped them through the lines. He had 
purchased cotton in 1864 and had stored it until it had been moved 
by the federal government after Sherman had overrun Savannah. The 
men who sold the cotton to Pollard were in the service of the Con- 
federate government, residents of Savannah. One had been a captain 
in the army until 1862 and the other had been deputy collector of the 
port of Savannah when the city was captured. The loyalty of the 
vendors, the question as to whether or not the sale was bona fide, and 
issues similar to those in Nelson Anderson's case were discussed by 
the Court of Claims opinion. The court found in Pollard's favor, hold- 
ing the sale to be bona fide and stating that sales by rebels or trans- 
actions within rebel territory were not forbidden by the statute of 
July 17, 1862, a statute which provided for confiscation of specified 
properties and which made null and void sales by persons owning 
property within loyal territory who aided in the rebellion. The court 
found that the statute merely voided sales as against the United 
States. The court referred to the loyal as " 'the faithful few among the 
faithless found,' " and concluded that the 1863 act purposely protected 
them. The loyalty of the vendor was not required, and the statute 
of June 25, 1868, prohibiting testimony in support of claims by claim- 
ants or persons deriving title from claimants against the United States, 

34 Huldah L. Stanton, Tutrix and Guardian, v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 456 
(1868), hereinafter cited as Stanton v. US. 

36 William Pollard v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 328 (1868), hereinafter cited 
as Pollard v. U.S. 

86 Morris Kohn v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 436 (1868), hereinafter cited as 
Kohn v. U.S. 

37 Stanton v. U.S. 

332 The North Carolina Historical Review 

did not alter this interpretation. The claimant was awarded $10,020 
for the proceeds from sixty bales of upland cotton. 38 

The third case combined with that of Anderson involved a man 
who, German by birth, was a naturalized citizen of the United States. 
Here again, the Court of Claims found the claimant to be loyal and 
found further that a petition filed on October 14, 1867, was within the 
two-year statute of limitations. Kohn was awarded $ 109,771. 20. 39 

In the three cases heard with the Anderson appeal, the United 
States government was represented by Attorney General Ebenezer 
Rockwell Hoar and Special Counsel Robert S. Hale. Hoar, a graduate 
of Harvard Law School, had served as judge of the Court of Common 
Pleas in Massachusetts before resigning in 1855 to practice law. In 
1859 he became associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of 
Massachusetts, a post he held for a decade prior to his appointment 
as attorney general by Ulysses S. Grant. 40 Hale was a graduate of the 
University of Vermont who later studied law under Augustus C. Hand 
in Elizabethtown, New York, and practiced law there. After eight 
years as county judge and surrogate of Essex County, Hale entered 
private practice. In 1868 he was appointed special counsel of the 
Treasury Department and in that capacity handled many cases arising 
under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act. 41 

While the Supreme Court opinion shows five attorneys— T. J. D. 
Fuller, A. G. Riddle, George Taylor, J. A. Wills, and W. Penn Clarke- 
representing Anderson, only Fuller actually appeared for Anderson; 
the others were attorneys in the Pollard, Stanton, and Kohn cases. 
The names of these lawyers appear often in the opinions of the Court 
of Claims, and they evidently had thriving practices in Washington. 

United States v. Anderson was argued before the Supreme Court of 
the United States at its December, 1869, term. Hoar and Hale, for the 
government, made the same points previously stressed in the Court 
of Claims. The attorneys argued that the claim, filed June 5, 1868, 
was too late; that when the courts were reopened and when armed 
aggression against government had ceased, there was no longer civil 
war. They contended that the rebellion was suppressed as a matter 

38 Pollard v. U.S.; 12 Stat. 590, c. 195, s. 5; 12 Stat. 820, c. 120, s. 3; 15 Stat. 75, 
c. 71, s. 4. 

39 Kohn v. U.S. 

40 Allen Johnson, Dumas Malone, and Others (eds.), Dictionary of American Biog- 
raphy (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 22 volumes and index, 1928—), IX, 
86-87, hereinafter cited as Dictionary of American Biography. After retiring from 
the cabinet in 1870, Hoar served a term in Congress. 

41 Dictionary of American Biography, VIII, 110-111. Hale also served a term in Con- 
gress in the 1870's. 

The End of the Rebellion 333 

of fact after Kirby Smith 42 surrendered on May 26, 1865, and that 
Anderson's right to file a claim expired two years from that date. Presi- 
dential proclamations were regarded by the government attorneys as 
executive recognition of the fact that peace was restored; these procla- 
mations did not in themselves create peace. They continued their 
argument to the effect that if an executive act was, indeed, necessary 
to establish the fact of suppression, then that of April 2, 1866, recog- 
nized an end to the rebellion in South Carolina and was applicable to 
Nelson Anderson. Because the cause of action arose in that state, the 
statute would run from the time the rebellion was suppressed there. 
They discussed other acts and proclamations relating to the war's end, 
arguing that they had no applicability to the Captured and Abandoned 
Property Act. 

Hale and Hoar continued the same line of argument used in the 
Court of Claims when they emphasized the point that the loyalty of 
Fleming and Doucen, vendors to Anderson, was not proved. Resi- 
dence in South Carolina was presumptive evidence that they were 
rebels, and a sale by them had been made void under the act of 
July 17, 1862. Nothing in the act of March 12, 1863, repealed provi- 
sions of the earlier confiscation act which had prohibited sales be- 
tween certain specified classes of people, so the attorneys insisted. 
Proof of ownership meant lawful ownership, and Hale and Hoar con- 
tended Anderson had not derived legal title to the cotton. The points 
relating to alienage and the proper means of determining the amount 
of the proceeds were not stressed by the lawyers. 

With regard to the two-year statute of limitations, Hoar and Hale 
concluded that Anderson's petition filed June 5, 1868, was barred 
under any available test. They cited the Prize Cases, 2 Black. 667, 
defining a state of civil war to be in existence when the course of 
justice was interrupted; conversely, they contended the opening of 
the courts and resumption of normal activity was evidence that the 
rebellion had ended. 43 

Anderson's attorney and those for the Pollard, Stanton, and Kohn 
cases argued that the ending of the war was a legislative question 
and, therefore, the court should not change the date Congress had 

42 Edmund Kirby Smith was in command of the Trans-Mississippi Department from 
1862 to 1865. He received the permanent rank of general in the Provisional Army 
in February, 1864. Smith was almost the last Confederate general in the field; he 
surrendered to General E. R. S. Canby on May 26, 1865. It is interesting to note that 
General Smith was the last survivor of the full generals of the Confederacy. He died 
March 28, 1893. Ezra J. Warner, Generals in Gray: Lives of the Confederate Com- 
manders ([Baton Rouge]: Louisiana State University Press, c. 1959), 280. 

43 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56 (1869) ; National Archives record; 12 Stat. 
590, c. 195, s. 5; 12 Stat. 820, c. 120. 

334 The North Carolina Historical Review 

recognized as the end of the war. Congressional legislation had ac- 
cepted President Andrew Johnson's proclamation of August 20, 1866, 
as the true end of the conflict. Legislation passed March 2, 1867, had 
declared that earlier congressional action of June 20, 1864, providing 
for an increase in the pay of soldiers in the army, was to continue 
for three years "after the close of the rebellion, as announced by the 
President of the United States by proclamation, bearing date the 
twentieth day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-six." This con- 
gressional recognition of the August 20 date, Anderson's lawyers con- 
tended, left no doubt that the claimant was well within the two-year 
period allowed for filing of claims. 44 

The lines were ably drawn. The government relied on either the 
practical aspects of the surrender of Confederate generals or on prior 
court rulings to establish the legal end of the war. If the court applied 
any of these tests, Nelson Anderson had filed his claim too late. An- 
derson's attorneys, on the other hand, relied upon precedents which 
seemed to establish that the end of the war was a political determina- 
tion which had already been made by Congress as August 20, 1866. 
They maintained that the court should not interfere with this date but 
should ratify it. If the court accepted this date, Nelson Anderson had 
filed his claim within the two-year period and was entitled to the 
return of the net proceeds from the sale of his cotton. 

The opinion in the case of United States v. Anderson was written 
by Justice David Davis of Illinois. Davis, a graduate of Yale Law 
School and an intimate friend of Abraham Lincoln, had been ap- 
pointed to the Supreme Court by Lincoln in December, 1862. 45 

Justice Davis opened his opinion by reciting some of the essential 
provisions of the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863. He 
noted particularly the act's application to the loyal people of the 
South, stating that Congress had distinguished between property 
owned by them and property of the disloyal. He pointed out that 
Congress had, in a spirit of liberality, constituted the government a 
trustee for so much of the property as belonged to the faithful south- 
ern people. He observed that all people of this class had the opportun- 
ity at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion 
to file their claims and establish their right to the proceeds from the 
sales of that portion of property they owned. All that was necessary was 

44 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56 (1869) ; National Archives record; 14 Stat. 
814 (Appendix No. 4) ; 14 Stat. 422, c. 145, s. 2; 13 Stat. 144, c. 145. 

46 Dictionary of American Biography, V, 110-111. Davis served as administrator of 
Lincoln's estate. 

The End of the Rebellion 335 

the establishment of ownership of the property and proof of loyalty. 46 
The question of ownership had been raised in the Court of Claims, 
the contention being that the vendors in South Carolina were rebels 
prohibited from selling. Justice Davis and members of the court re- 
fused to find that the confiscation law of July 17, 1862, imposed a dis- 
ability to be considered in interpreting the law of March 12, 1863. 
The court held that had the privilege of buying and selling been 
limited to loyal citizens dealing with other loyal citizens, the law 
would have specifically made such a provision. The law was intended 
to treat all alike and not to discriminate in favor of those who could 
trace title through loyal sources. The 1863 law extended privileges to 
loyal owners; it crippled rebels. The statute required that the property 
of friend and foe be taken, but those citizens who remained loyal 
would later be allowed to redeem the value of their confiscated prop- 
erty. 47 

The competency of the vendors as witnesses had been questioned 
by attorneys for the government, who cited the fourth section of the 
June 25, 1868, act. 48 This act provided that no plaintiff or person from 
whom title against the United States was derived could be a compe- 
tent witness in support of the claimant's cause. The Supreme Court 
held that Doucen and Fleming were not excluded by the rule as they 
had no interest in the outcome of the suit. Anderson had no claim 
against the United States through them because Doucen and Fleming 
had never had a claim against the United States. When the property 
was taken by the government, it belonged to Anderson. His claim 
was only contingent upon the proceeds from the sale of his cotton 
reaching the treasury. 49 Thus the question of Anderson's ownership 
was settled. 

Of course the primary question was that involving the two-year 
statute of limitations. Justice Davis observed that there was nothing 
in the act to prevent a person from filing a claim immediately after 
the proceeds of the sale reached the treasury, but such action was 
made impossible by war. Persons who might have escaped as the 
Union forces took over could certainly have proceeded immediately 

46 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall, at 64-69. 

"United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall, at 65-67; 12 Stat. 590, c. 195, s. 5; 12 Stat. 
820, c. 120. 

48 15 Stat. 75, c. 71, s. 4. 

40 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall, at 67-68 (1869). The question of the loyalty of 
the vendors was discussed in Henry Wayne v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 426 (1868), 
a case involving a sale shortly before Savannah was taken by Sherman. The Court of 
Claims held that the loyalty of the vendors was not an issue, that the claimant only 
had to prove that he had a good title at the time the cotton was captured. 

336 The North Carolina Historical Review 

to file their claims. The important issue was concerned with the date 
of expiration of two years after the suppression of the rebellion. The 
Supreme Court held that the suppression in one locality was not tanta- 
mount to suppression of the rebellion and that an interpretation which 
allowed one rule for one area and a different standard for another 
section could not be permitted. 50 

When was the rebellion entirely suppressed? Did Congress intend 
that all of the people in the South affected by this act take notice of 
the time the last Confederate general surrendered and start counting 
the two-year period from that date? The inherent difficulty in deter- 
mining such a matter, Justice Davis held, rendered it certain that 
Congress did not intend for people to make such decisions for them- 
selves. Some public proclamation or legislation was needed. 

President Andrew Johnson actually issued three proclamations 
recognizing the end of the rebellion. That of June 13, 1865, related to 
Tennessee; 51 that of April 2, 1866, to Georgia, South Carolina, Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, 
Mississippi, and Florida. 52 Though various other proclamations and 
acts of Congress had a bearing on the subject, Davis stated that it was 
only necessary to notice the presidential proclamation of August 20, 
1866, and the act of Congress of March 2, 1867. 53 The August 20, 
1866, proclamation related to Texas, and in it the President stated: 

And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and 
that peace, order, tranquillity and civil authority now exist in and through- 
out the whole of the United States. 54 

This was the first official declaration that the rebellion had been 
suppressed everywhere; this proclamation was accepted by Congress 
when, on March 2, 1867, the provision was made that the act of 
June 20, 1864, fixing the pay of noncommissioned officers and privates 
through the term of the rebellion, was to remain in force for three 
years after the close of the rebellion as announced by the President in 
his proclamation. Congress thereby, said the court, adopted August 20, 
1866, as the day of close for this purpose. The Supreme Court reasoned 
that Congress would certainly not intend a harsher rule for claimants, 
and that the point of time should be construed liberally in favor of 
those who adhered to the Union. The court accepted the August 20, 

60 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall, at 68-69. 
61 13 Stat. 763 (Appendix No. 40). 
68 14 Stat. 811 (Appendix No. 1). 

63 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall, at 69-70; 14 Stat. 814 (Appendix No. 4); 14 
Stat. 422, c. 145, s. 2. 
"14 Stat. 814 at 817 (Appendix No. 4). 

The End of the Rebellion 337 

1866, date as being applicable so far as rights secured by the Captured 
and Abandoned Property Act was concerned. Nelson Anderson, hav- 
ing filed his claim on June 5, 1868, had filed within the two-year 
period and was, therefore, entitled to receive the net proceeds of 
$6,723.36, the amount determined to have been realized from the sale 
of his cotton. The decision of the Court of Claims was affirmed. 55 

Interestingly enough, the Court of Claims had reached the same 
conclusion with regard to the two-year statute of limitations in a case 
it had heard prior to the Anderson hearing. In Grossmayer v. United 
States, the first case before the Court of Claims in which the statute 
of limitations was discussed, Chief Justice Casey had held that the 
date of the suppression of the rebellion was a political rather than a 
judicial question; that the President, in opening war, had exercised 
power under acts of February 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807, authoriz- 
ing him to call out the militia; that his proclamation of April 15, 1861, 
had taken such action; that on April 19 and 27 he had declared a 
blockade of southern ports and on May 3, 1861, he had called for 
volunteer regiments with the result that the regular army was in- 
creased; that the proclamation of May 10 had declared martial law 
on the coast of Florida. The court pointed out the fact that all of this 
action occurred prior to the convening of Congress, but that these 
acts were ratified by Congress when it convened the following July 4. 
A congressional act of July 13, 1861, provided that the President could 
lawfully, by proclamation, declare a state of insurrection; later in July 
Congress defined the meaning of "suppression of rebellion" and other 
terms; on June 7, 1862, the President was authorized to declare in 
what states and parts of states insurrection existed; the proclamation 
of July 1, 1862, designated certain states as being in rebellion and 
again designated them in the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 
1863. Justice Casey continued by reviewing proclamations issued as 
the war ended, summarizing those of June 13, 1865, April 2, 1866, 
and August 20, 1866, relating to the suppression of the rebellion in 
various areas. The court then discussed the congressional action con- 
tinuing in effect pay for soldiers for three years after the close of the 
rebellion as announced by the President as August 20, 1866. The 
judiciary had no choice but to follow the decision made by Congress 
in adopting the presidential proclamation as the date of the close of 
the rebellion. 56 

66 United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall, at 70-72; 14 Stat. 422, c. 145, s. 2; 13 Stat. 
144, c. 145; 14 Stat. 814 (Appendix No. 4) ; National Archives record. 

56 Henry Grossmayer v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. at 5, 14-28 (1868) ; 1 Stat. 424, 
c. 36; 2 Stat. 443, c. 39; 12 Stat. 1258 (Appendix No. 3); 12 Stat. 1258 (Appendix 

338 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Grossmayer case was the first decided under the Captured and 
Abandoned Property Act after provision had been made for appeals 
by the government of any decision adverse to it in the Court of 
Claims. 57 The decision granting recovery to the claimants in the Gross- 
mayer case was reversed by the Supreme Court, but the reversal was 
on grounds other than the point involving the statute of limitations. 58 

The Anderson opinion in the Court of Claims cited as precedent the 
reasoning outlined in the Grossmayer opinion. 59 The cases were heard 
in reverse order in the Supreme Court; there the Anderson case was 
decided prior to the Grossmayer case. George Taylor represented 
Grossmayer; he was also the attorney in the Stanton case, one of those 
combined with the Anderson case for purposes of appeal to the 
Supreme Court. Hoar and Hale represented the government in both 

The Anderson case created little interest in the press, though the 
date set by the court was to affect the rights of many filing claims 
under federal legislation. The only notice carried in the Charleston 
Daily Courier appeared in the issue of March 1, 1870, under a Feb- 
ruary 28 Washington dateline: 

The Supreme Court to-day in the cotton cases, appealed from the Court 
of Claims, took the President's Proclamation of August 20, 1866, as the 
date of the termination of the war. This affects many cotton cases and 
other litigation. 60 

The Charleston Daily News for the same date carried exactly the 
same item, and two days later, that paper had a four-paragraph sum- 
mary of the decision in the Anderson case and "three other similar 
cases" appealed from the Court of Claims. No mention was made of 
Nelson Anderson and the fact that he was a resident of South Caro- 
lina. 61 

The Daily National Republican of Washington summarized the de- 
cision briefly and commented, "The executive and legislative branches 
of the Government having united on the date, it is accepted as the 
actual and proper one by the judiciary." 62 The David Davis Papers 

No. 4); 12 Stat. 1259 (Appendix No. 5); 12 Stat. 1260 (Appendix No. 6); 12 Stat. 
1260 (Appendix No. 7) ; 12 Stat. 255ff., which quotes the several congressional en- 
actments; 12 Stat. 257, c. 3, s. 5; 12 Stat. 281, c. 25; 12 Stat. 422, c. 98, s. 2; 12 Stat. 
1266 (Appendix No. 14) ; 12 Stat. 1268 (Appendix No. 17) ; 13 Stat. 763 (Appendix 
No. 40); 14 Stat. 811 (Appendix No. 1); 14 Stat. 814 (Appendix No. 4). 

"Henry Grossmayer v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. at 29; 15 Stat. 75, c. 71. 

58 United States v. Grossmayer, 9 Wall. 72 (1869). 

59 Anderson v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 467 (1868). 

60 Charleston Daily Courier (South Carolina), March 1, 1870. Files of this newspaper 
for the period covering the case give no information other than this one report. 

81 Charleston Daily News (South Carolina), March 1, 3, 1870. 
"Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), March 1, 1870. 

The End of the Rebellion 339 

contain nothing relating to the Anderson case, an indication that Jus- 
tice Davis did not regard the opinion as being extraordinary. 63 

In cases which followed the Anderson case, the Supreme Court 
found the date of the termination of the war in a given locality to be 
the pertinent date rather than the end of the conflict as a whole. The 
question of the end of the rebellion was considered in relation to the 
purpose for which the question was asked, but the Supreme Court, in 
the Anderson case, interpreted the law in a way which would offer 
loyal southerners every opportunity to present their claims. 64 In pro- 
viding for recovery by those people, "Congress was renouncing a part 
of its strict belligerent rights as the Supreme Court understood 
them." 65 

It is difficult to understand why the Anderson case has received so 
little attention in secondary works of the Reconstruction period. 66 The 
answer to the question concerning the end of the rebellion is itself of 
interest; the fact that Nelson Anderson was a Negro makes it par- 
ticularly so. William Pollard, whose case was combined with Ander- 
son's, was also a Negro; both men were draymen, property owners, 
dealers in cotton, southerners who remained loyal to the Union 
throughout the war. The attorneys who represented these men in the 
Supreme Court, T. J. D. Fuller and Albert Riddle, practiced law in 
Washington and handled many cotton cases in the Court of Claims. 
Both men served terms in Congress. Riddle may have had some philan- 
thropic motive in representing a Negro because he had always been 
bitter in his opposition to slavery and had distinguished himself in 
Congress by his arguments on the bill to abolish slavery in the District 
of Columbia. 67 

03 See David Davis Papers, Manuscript Department, Duke University Library, 

64 Charles Gordon Post, "The Supreme Court and Political Questions," Johns Hop- 
kins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, LIV (Number 4), 1936, 
45-47. The cases cited therein are concerned with statute of limitations application in 
the case of liens, promissory notes, and other business matters; the Anderson case 
is not cited as precedent in any of these. See, for example, Brown v. Hiatts, 15 Wall. 
177 (1872) ; Batesville Institute v. Kauffman, 18 Wall. 151 (1873) ; Ross, Administra- 
tor, v. Jones, 22 Wall. 576 (1874) ; and Carroll et al. v. Green et al, 92 U.S. 509 

"James G. Randall, "Captured and Abandoned Property During the Civil War," 
American Historical Review, XIX (October, 1913), 66, hereinafter cited as Randall, 
"Captured and Abandoned Property." 

86 See, for example, Eric L. McKitrick, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction (Chi- 
cago: University of Chicago Press, c. 1960); Kenneth M. Stampp, The Era of Re- 
construction, IS 65-1 877 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965); Joel Williamson, After 
Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina During Reconstruction, 1861-1877 (Chapel Hill: 
University of North Carolina Press, c. 1965) ; John Hope Franklin, Reconstruction: 
After the Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, c. 1961); Francis Butler 
Simkins and Robert Hilliard Woody, South Carolina During Reconstruction (Chapel 
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1931). 

"Who Was Who, 193; Dictionary of American Biography, XV, 591. 

340 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The claimants in the cotton cases may have been poor, unknown 
people, but the Court of Claims' liberality in favor of the claimants 
made many of them fairly well off financially, and their lawyers un- 
doubtedly were able to collect their legal fees. 68 Reports made in May, 
1868, showed gross proceeds from the sale of cotton to be $29,518,041 
and the gross for other captured and abandoned property to be 
$1,309,650; the net total was $25,257,931, over 95 percent of which 
was for cotton. A report of the Treasury Department showed that up 
to February 4, 1888, the net receipts from captured and abandoned 
property were $26,887,584.39, with $15,880,664.19 of this coming as 
receipts from the sale of cotton of individuals. The total amount paid 
out in judgments up to February 4, 1888, was reported as being 
$9,864,300.75. 69 

It is of note that no attention was given to the fact that Anderson 
and Pollard were Negroes. Except for five words in the Supreme Court 
opinion that Anderson was "a free man of color" and similar brief 
mentions in the papers relating to the case, the fact would be un- 
known. The Court of Claims handled numerous cases involving Ne- 
groes, 70 but nothing was said in any of them to indicate that there 

68 A few examples show that sums of $51,696.16, $18,825, $123,138.35, $20,736, 
$76,293.60 $35,011.68, $2,047.52, $50,581.60, $262.40, $393.60, and $2,823.75 were 
awarded by the Court of Claims in the cases of Stanton v. U.S., which was upheld by 
the Supreme Court; Cornelius B. Miller et al. v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 288 
(1868) ; Edward Padelford v. United States, 4 C CI. Rep. 316 (1868) ; Henry A. 
Ealer v. United States, 4 C CI. Rep. 372 (1868) ; Charles J. Quinby v. United States, 
4 C CI. Rep. 417 (1868); Asher Ayers v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 422 (1868); 
Henry Wayne v. United States, 4 C CI. Rep. 426 (1868) ; Julius A. Hay den v. United 
States, 4 C CI. Rep. 475 (1868) ; W. T. Oliver v. United States, 3 C CI. Rep. 62 
(1867) ; Thomas Aiken v. United States, 3 C CI. Rep. 307 (1867) ; and Mary Bond v. 
United States, 2 C. CI. Rep. 529 (1866). 

69 Randall, "Captured and Abandoned Property," 69, 77, 74. The question of the 
effect of pardon and amnesty on the right of a claimant filing under the provisions of 
the Captured and Abandoned Property Act was raised in United States v. Klein, 13 
Wall. 128 (1871). The Supreme Court adhered to the liberal interpretation of the 
law, holding that Congress intended to restore property to loyal owners and also to 
those who had been hostile but later became loyal. After the issuance of a proclama- 
tion of general amnesty, the restoration of property to all bona fide owners became 
the duty of the government. Therefore, all who had been dispossessed through the 
operation of the Captured and Abandoned Property Act were, regardless of the 
question of their original loyalty, entitled to full restitution. The Klein case was not 
decided until 1871; under the decision in the Anderson case, those unable to claim 
original loyalty were barred from recovery by the operation of the statute of limita- 
tions. Various bills were introduced in Congress to restore the rights of the people 
IvKnn in this cate £° rv > but nothing was done. As late as 1913 there was a balance of 
$4,992,349.92 in the treasury from the proceeds realized under the 1863 act. The 
Ireasury Department contended that this sum was about equal to the total value of 
the cotton which had belonged to the Confederate government and, therefore, there 
was nothing left in trust for individuals. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Prob- 
lems Under Lincoln (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1926), 338-340; Randall, 
"Captured and Abandoned Property," 78. 

TO See, for example, Edward Fordham v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 469 (1868) ; 
hAiza A. Habersham, Administratrix, v. United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 433 (1868); 
Henry Wayne v United States, 4 C. CI. Rep. 426 (1868) ; Delancy Jenkins v. United 

ko ffoanp- C1 ' Rep ' 587 (1868) ; and Henr y G - Thomas v. United States, 3 C. CI. Rep. 
oZ ( 1867) . 

The End of the Rebellion 341 

was anything unusual in this. The Anderson and Pollard cases decided 
in the Supreme Court's December, 1869, term, arose just twelve years 
after the Dred Scott decision which determined that a Negro was not 
a citizen and therefore had no standing in courts of the United States. 71 
The Anderson case was filed in the Court of Claims before the Four- 
teenth Amendment became effective in July, 1868. 72 

The Anderson claim affords an opportunity to examine at first hand 
a case involving a Negro, one in which the claimant was treated as a 
complete equal without fanfare and without the benefit of constitu- 
tional amendment. It is equally of interest that the decision regarding 
the property of one Negro from South Carolina affected the legal 
rights of hundreds of other individuals filing claims under the Cap- 
tured and Abandoned Property Act of March 12, 1863, claims which 
could have been filed at anytime prior to August 20, 1868, two years 
after the official determination of the day the rebellion ended. 

71 Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856). 

72 J. G. Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 
c. 1937), 787-789. 




By James R. Morrill* 

As the United States moved inexorably toward the presidential 
election of 1852, every portent indicated that the political contest 
would center upon the ominous, persistent issue of slavery and, more 
particularly, upon the Compromise of 1850 and its fugitive slave law. 
Having become law through the efforts and support of President 
Millard Fillmore and of congressional moderates, northern and south- 
ern, from both major political parties, the Compromise measures had 
sought to eliminate slavery as a political issue; the settlement, how- 
ever, had been denounced by antislavery elements and had been 
received only with acquiescence by the more militant champions of 
southern rights. As the presidential election approached, antislavery 
Whigs, more numerous and influential than their Democratic coun- 
terparts, sought to promote and control the candidacy of General 
Winfield Scott, who was not publicly committed to the Compromise. 
Although Scott's nomination was uncertain, northern domination of 
the Whig party virtually assured that the party's presidential nominee 
would be from that section of the country, and the presence of a vocal, 
significant antislavery faction within the northern wing created con- 
siderable doubt that a platform and ticket acceptable to the South 
would be forthcoming. The resultant anxiety among southern Whigs 
contrasted sharply with the confidence of southern Democrats. Since 
1844 the northern wing of the Democratic party had been content, for 
the sake of office, to let the southern wing provide the party's leader- 
ship and platform, a situation which had tended to corroborate the 
claim by southern Democrats that their party was the true champion 
and defender of southern rights. Largely indifferent to the slavery 
issue, the northern wing contained a number of presidential hopefuls 
who were acceptable to the South. Thus the equanimity among south- 
ern Democrats and the apprehensions of southern Whigs were both 
well founded. 

* Dr. Morrill is assistant professor of history at the University of Louisville, Louis- 
ville, Kentucky. 

The Presidential Election of 1852 343 

The serious concern among southern Whigs became manifest in 
North Carolina during late 1851 and early 1852. While almost unani- 
mously endorsing President Fillmore for the nomination on the basis 
of his support of the Compromise, 1 Whig newspaper editors and other 
Whig leaders suffered no illusions about his chances and thus empha- 
sized that they would support the party's nominee only upon the es- 
sential condition that he publicly and unequivocally endorse the Com- 
promise settlement. 2 Scott's strong candidacy and lack of public 
commitment to the Compromise clearly prompted the warning and 
lent urgency to it. Despite their anxieties, however, North Carolina 
Whigs disavowed the proposal being made in other states that the 
southern wing threaten to boycott the Whig national convention as 
a means to gain prior concessions from the North; nor did the state's 
Whigs support proposals to form a Union party or to seek Fillmore's 
election directly through the Electoral College rather than through the 
party machinery. 3 Seeing no realistic alternative to attending the 
national convention, the Whig party of North Carolina was deter- 
mined to secure Fillmore's nomination if possible and to strive, in any 
event, to make the Whig ticket and platform acceptable to the South. 

By the early spring of 1852 Scott's candidacy, which antislavery 

1 Fillmore's popularity is abundantly manifest in the correspondence of North Caro- 
lina Whigs. See, for example, the numerous letters of early 1852 to William Alexander 
Graham in the William Alexander Graham Papers, Southern Historical Collection, 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as Graham Papers, 
Southern Historical Collection. See also the William D. Valentine Diaries, April 26, 
May 13, 19, 1852, Southern Historical Collection, hereinafter cited as Valentine 
Diaries. The Hillsborough Recorder, October 15, 1851, reported that every Whig 
newspaper in North Carolina had endorsed Fillmore, a statement which extant news- 
papers tend to confirm. As revealed in the Raleigh Register's issues of late 1851 and 
early 1852, every Whig public meeting in North Carolina endorsed the President for 
the nomination. 

2 For editorial comments regarding Fillmore's bleak prospects and North Carolina's 
insistence that the nominee endorse the Compromise, see Raleigh Register, Novem- 
ber 8, 1851; Weekly Commercial (Wilmington), November 8, 1851, and February 12, 
1852, hereinafter cited as Commercial; Old North State (Elizabeth City), November 1, 
1851, and January 31, 1852, hereinafter cited as Old North State; Hillsborough Re- 
corder, October 15, 1851; Greensborough Patriot, October 4, 1851; Commercial, Jan- 
uary 20, 1852, quoting the Weldon Patriot. Pessimistic evaluations of Fillmore's 
chances are found in the following letters to William Alexander Graham in the Graham 
Papers, Southern Historical Collection: Calvin Henderson Wiley to Graham, October 28, 
1851; James West Bryan to Graham, January 25, 1852; William Johnston to Graham, 
March 25, 1852; Henry W. Miller to Graham, March 20, 1852; Charles W. Johnston 
to Graham, March 29, 1852. Reports concerning Whig political rallies are found in 
the issues of the Raleigh Register. 

8 These proposals were being seriously considered in some southern states. Arthur 
Charles Cole, The Whig Party in the South (Washington, D.C.: American Historical 
Association, 1913), 240-241, hereinafter cited as Cole, Whig Party. For a study of the 
Union party movement, see Cole, Whig Party, 174-211. For contemporary reports and 
North Carolina's reaction to them, see Raleigh Register, October 4, 1851; Raleigh 
Register, October 11, 1851, quoting the Fayetteville Observer; Old North State, Novem- 
ber 1, 1851; Raleigh Register, October 15, 1851, quoting the Wilmington Herald. 

344 The North Carolina Historical Review 

elements ever more significantly surrounded, 4 had become sufficiently 
powerful to force his name and his uncertain position regarding 
slavery more explicitly into the editorial columns of southern Whig 
newspapers. The fact of the matter was that Scott's inner convictions 
concerning the institution of slavery were vague and ambiguous, 5 and 
his attitude toward the political settlement of the issue was also a 
subject of widespread conjecture and controversy. It was well known 
in some quarters that Scott had privately favored the passage of the 
Compromise measures. 6 It was a fact of public life on the other hand 
that the General had never formally endorsed the Compromise. Dur- 
ing early 1852 Winfield Scott did nothing to eliminate the doubts and 
uncertainty, for upon the advice of William H. Seward he continued 
to refrain from public commitment to the Compromise. 7 Scott's pri- 
vate support of the Compromise of 1850 and his obvious political 
availability were sufficient inducement to woo some southerners into 
the General's ranks, but most southern Whigs were becoming increas- 
ingly insistent that he publicly declare himself unreservedly in favor 
of the Compromise settlement. In 1852, therefore, Scott's accept- 
ability was a matter of controversy among southern Whigs as well 
as between Whigs and Democrats. 

The dispute among North Carolina Whigs became apparent in 
March, 1852, when Seaton Gales, editor of the Raleigh Register, an- 
nounced that while he preferred Fillmore as the Whig nominee, the 
Register would accept either Daniel Webster or Winfield Scott be- 
cause "they both proved their devotion to it [the Compromise] whilst 
it was under consideration." 8 Although Gales considered Scott's 
public endorsement of the Compromise to be unnecessary and although 
several other Whig editors began to refer to Scott sympathetically, a 
number of Whig newspapers indicated that they could not support the 

4 Cole, Whig Party, 229. See also Frederick Bancroft, The Life of William H. 
Seward (New York: Harper and Brothers, 2 volumes, 1900), I, 301, hereinafter cited 
as Bancroft, Life of Seward. 

5 Cole, Whig Party, 258-259; Edward Everett Hale, Jr., William H. Seward (Phila- 
delphia: George Jacobs & Company, 1910), 209, hereinafter cited as Hale, William H. 
Seward. Cole states that Scott's "personal predelictions were in full sympathy with 
the platform." Hale writes that Scott opposed the extension of slavery. The entire 
matter of Scott's views on slavery seems to be insufficiently explored. 

6 Cole, Whig Party, 229 ; William Alexander Graham to James Graham, August 25, 
1850, J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton (ed.), The Papers of William Alexander Graham 
(Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History [projected multivolume series, 
1957— ], 1960), III, 370; William Alexander Graham to [?] letter fragment, June 29, 
1852, William Alexander Graham Papers, State Department of Archives and History, 
Raleigh, hereinafter cited as Graham Papers, State Archives. That other North Caro- 
lina Whigs were convinced of Scott's soundness "will be revealed later in this paper. 

7 Cole, Whig Party, 229. 

8 Raleigh Register, March 17, 1852. 

The Presidential Election of 1852 345 

General without his public approbation of the 1850 settlement. 9 Un- 
doubtedly most North Carolina Whigs demanded Scott's unequivocal 
endorsement of the Compromise, 10 and until he should make such an 
endorsement, his candidacy aroused little enthusiasm within the state. 
Whig editors, in fact, noted a general apathy toward the entire matter 
of the presidential election. 

While uncertainty and anxiety perplexed the Whigs, North Caro- 
lina Democrats faced the coming election with confidence derived 
from southern control of the party. The man most preferred by state 
Democrats for the presidential nomination was apparently James 
Buchanan of Pennsylvania, 11 but because no Democratic candidate 
posed a threat to the vital interests of the South, the North Carolina 
party did not view the nomination as a matter of immediate or dire 
concern. It was of some concern, however, that the balanced popu- 
larity of the chief aspirants might combine with the two-thirds rule at 
the Democratic national convention to thwart the ambitions of the 
major candidates and necessitate the selection of a compromise, "dark- 
horse" nominee. 12 Although such an outcome would be politically 
disadvantageous, traditional southern domination of the convention 
made the possibility less than ominous. Democratic newspapers 
stressed the soundness of all the party's candidates, and the editor of 
the Wilmington Journal felt confident enough to propose that the state 
party neither endorse a candidate nor instruct its delegates so that 
North Carolina could be free at the national convention to entice 
proposals regarding the vice-presidential nomination. 13 Clearly North 
Carolina Democrats considered themselves to be in a strong position 
both within their own national party and with respect to the Whig 

9 Old North State, April 17, 1852; North Carolina Standard (Raleigh), March 20, 
1852, hereinafter cited as North Carolina Standard, quoting the Asheville News ; North 
Carolina Standard, March 31, 1852, quoting the North Carolina Star (Raleigh). 

10 In the William Alexander Graham Papers, Southern Historical Collection, the 
following letters to William Alexander Graham express and /or report coolness or hos- 
tility toward Scott's candidacy: James West Bryan to Graham, January 25, 1852; 
James W. Osbourne to Graham, January 12, 1852; William Johnston to Graham, 
March 25, 1852; Henry W. Miller to Graham, March 20, 1852; Edward J. Hale to 
Graham, April 21, 1852; Augustine H. Shepperd to Graham, April 26, 1852; see also 
Dennis Heartt to Willie P. Mangum, March 31, 1852, Henry Thomas Shanks (ed.), 
The Papers of Willie Person Mangum (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and 
History, 5 volumes, 1950-1956), V, 222, hereinafter cited as Shanks, Papers of Man- 

11 Several Democratic newspapers endorsed Buchanan. See North Carolina Standard 
January 21, 1852, quoting Republican and Patriot (Goldsboro), and the Warrenton 
News. See also J. R. J. Daniel to General W. A. Blount, February 12, 1852, John 
Gray Blount Papers, State Archives. North Carolina Democrats supported Robert 
Strange of North Carolina for the vice-presidential nomination. 

12 Wilmington Journal, November 17, 1851, and February 20, 1852. 

13 Wilmington Journal, April 27, 1852. 

346 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Secure behind a host of acceptable candidates, the Democrats 
sought to increase Whig dissension by proclaiming Scott's unsound- 
ness and his antislavery affiliations, by warning the southern Whigs 
that the General's nomination would be imposed upon them at the 
Whig national convention, and by chiding and condemning southern 
Whigs for associating with the mortal enemies of the South. As Demo- 
cratic accusations and Whig misgivings about Scott's acceptability 
intensified, and as Scott continued to maintain silence regarding the 
Compromise, the Whig party machinery became ever more sorely 
tested. In an effort to establish confidence in the General and to pre- 
pare southern Whigs for Scott's probable nomination, a Whig con- 
gressman from North Carolina publicly addressed himself to the topic 
of Scott's attitude toward the Compromise. Representative Edward 
Stanly, who preferred Fillmore but believed Scott's nomination had 
become inevitable, announced in April, 1852, that he, Stanly, per- 
sonally knew that Scott had favored the settlement. North Carolina 
Whigs, Stanly argued, wanted a nominee of "tried patriotism and 
unsuspected integrity,'' not one who wrote letters and made pledges 
on the eve of elections in order to solicit support. 14 While generally 
honoring Stanly's right to his own opinions, North Carolina Whigs 
replied firmly that Scott's public pledge supporting the Compromise 
was indeed necessary to obtain their support. 15 

Although Stanly's insistence that Scott was sound engendered no 
severe criticism, the actions of Willie Person Mangum, United States 
Senator from North Carolina and Whig party leader, stirred resent- 
ment among North Carolina Whigs and clearly revealed the difficul- 
ties within the party's southern wing. In early April Senator Mangum, 
who was personally convinced of Scott's soundness, announced from 
the Senate floor that he actually preferred Scott over Fillmore for the 
Whig presidential nomination. 16 Furthermore, on April 20 Mangum 
presided at a Whig congressional caucus and ruled that an endorse- 
ment of the Compromise was out of order because the matter lay 
within the purview of the Whig national convention rather than 

14 Stanly's public letter dated April 6, 1852, can be found in the Carolina Watchman 
(Salisbury), April 22, 1852, hereinafter cited as Carolina Watchman. An inaccurately 
printed version is in the Raleigh Register, April 14, 1852. 

15 North Carolina Standard, April 28, 1852, quoting the North Carolina^ Star- and 
the Newbernian (New Bern), hereinafter cited as Newbernian: Hillsborough Recorder, 
April 21, 1852. ' »,■ 

le The speech is found in Shanks, Papers of Mangum, V, 726-737. Mangum empha- 
sized Scott's political availability and soundness. 

The Presidential Election of 1852 347 

within that of the caucus. 17 The majority sustaining Mangum's ruling 
included Edward Stanly and James Turner Morehead of North Caro- 
lina. Following the vote, a number of southern Whig congressmen, 
including David Outlaw and Thomas Lanier Clingman of North Caro- 
lina, withdrew from the caucus in protest against the ruling. The 
opposition by Mangum, Stanly, and Morehead to the introduction of 
the endorsement resolution was procedural in nature and in no way 
constituted a substantive rejection of the Compromise of 1850, but 
their parliamentary position apparently escaped some North Carolina 
Whigs. Mangum, who made the ruling and who had previously pro- 
claimed his preference for Scott, underwent a barrage of criticism 
which was intensified by the insistence of Outlaw and Clingman that 
the caucus had indeed been authorized to entertain the endorsement 
resolution. 18 Trying to muffle the dispute and maintain party unity, 
North Carolina Whig editors insisted that all persons involved had 
acted from sincere, honorable, and disinterested— if conflicting— con- 
victions; 19 but mutterings could be heard, despite Mangum's an- 
nounced intention to retire, that the Senator had sold himself to Scott 
for the vice-presidential nomination. 20 

Amid the controversy surrounding events in Washington, the North 
Carolina Whig convention met at Raleigh on April 26-27. 21 The 
adopted platform expressed devotion to the Union; endorsed Millard 

17 For accounts of the Whig caucus of April 20, 1852, see Congressional Globe, 
Thirty-second Congress, First Session (Washington, D.C. : Congressional Globe Office, 
1852), 1158; Greensborough Patriot, May 1, 1852; Raleigh Register, April 28, May 5, 
22, 1852. 

18 The eleven men who withdrew from the caucus published a letter in late April in 
an effort to justify their action. The letter is in the Raleigh Register, May 5, 1852. 

19 Old North State, April 24, 1852; Hillsborough Recorder, April 28, 1852; Greens- 
borough Patriot, May 8, 1852; Commercial, May 1, 1852; Raleigh Register, April 28, 

20 Later at the Whig national convention the Scott forces did approach Mangum 
about the vice-presidential nomination, but Mangum declined. As Mangum wrote 
privately after the convention: "The nominations are made and are right — I might 
have been second but declined — The ill temper of No. Caro. is such that I thought 
it might hazard the vote. — " Willie Person Mangum to Martha P. Mangum, June 23, 
1852, Shanks, Papers of Mangum, V, 234. For immediate criticism of Mangum's 
speech of April 15, see Old North State, April 24, 1852 ; Carolina Watchman, April 29, 
1852, quoting the Goldsboro Telegraph; Old North State, May 15, 1852, quoting the 
Newbemian; North Carolina Standard, April 28, 1852, quoting the Raleigh Times 
and the Wilmington Herald; Commercial, May 11, 1852, quoting the North Carolina 
Argus (Wadesboro) ; Greensborough Patriot, May 8, 1852; Raleigh Register, April 28, 
1852; Carolina Watchman, April 24, 1852, quoting the Fayetteville Observer; Com- 
mercial, April 22, 1852. For private expressions of disapproval, see William Alexander 
Graham to James West Bryan, April 17, 1852, Bryan Papers, Southern Historical 
Collection; James W. Osbourne to Edward J. Hale, May 29, 1852, Edward J. Hale 
Papers, State Archives; Augustine H. Shepperd to William Alexander Graham, April 
26, 1852, Graham Papers, State Archives. 

21 The official account of the Whig state convention is found in the Raleigh Register, 
May 1, 1852. 

348 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Fillmore for the presidential nomination and William Alexander Gra- 
ham of North Carolina for the vice-presidential nomination; 22 promised 
that the Whig party of North Carolina would support any nominee 
who was unequivocally in favor of the Compromise as a final settle- 
ment; and warned that no presidential or vice-presidential nominee 
could obtain the vote of the Whig party of North Carolina unless he 
were "beyond doubt" in favor of maintaining all the Compromise 
measures. The North Carolina Whigs thus contributed to the increas- 
ing pressure which the South was bringing to bear upon Winfield 

Southern pressure, however, seemed unable to break the General's 
silence, and as the Whig national convention approached, Whig fears 
and disaffection became more pronounced. A number of party leaders, 
including David Outlaw and Thomas Clingman, indicated that they 
could not support Scott under existing circumstances. 23 Thomas Lor- 
ing, editor of the Wilmington Commercial, proclaimed irrevocable 
opposition to Scott and proposed that if the General should be nomi- 
nated, North Carolina thereupon field an independent ticket consisting 
of Fillmore and Graham. 24 Alarmed at the threatened defection, other 
Whig editors expressed confidence in Scott's soundness and urged 
calm and restraint among party members. 25 On the eve of the national 
convention one faction of North Carolina Whigs was convinced of 
Scott's soundness, another of his unsoundness, while the majority re- 
mained uncertain 26 and, to some extent, apathetic about his candidacy. 

Also by the time of the national convention, southern pressure upon 
Scott had begun to produce significant results. As convention dele- 
gates converged upon Washington and the convention city of Balti- 
more, 27 Scott began to abandon his antislavery advisers and to give 

22 Graham's name was being widely mentioned in other states for the vice-presidential 

23 David Outlaw to Joseph B. G. Roulhac, April 23, 1852, Ruffin-Roulhac-Hamilton 
Papers, Southern Historical Collection, hereinafter cited as Ruffin-Roulhac-Hamilton 
Papers; Outlaw's speech of June 10, 1852, in the House of Representatives reported 
in North Carolina Standard, May 15, 1852. For other signs of defection see John 
Kerr to William Alexander Graham, May 22, 1852, Graham Papers, Southern His- 
torical Collection; Valentine Diaries, April 26, 1852; Commercial, May 4, 1852; 
Raleigh Register, May 12, 1852; Raleigh Register, May 19, 1852, quoting the Fayette- 
ville Observer; Carolina Watchman, June 3, 1852. 

24 Commercial, May 4, 1852. 

25 Raleigh Register, May 19, 1852; Carolina Watchman, June 3, 1852; Old North 
State, June 5, 12, 1852 ; Greensborough Patriot, May 8, 1852. 

26 An illustration of Whig uncertainty regarding Scott is found in the Valentine 
Diaries, May 13, 1852. Valentine writes that while Scott is "perhaps" in favor of the 
Compromise, "many do not like to take him under an uncertainty." 

27 A detailed, although incomplete account of the Whig national convention can 
be found in the July 1, 1852, issue of the Signal (Washington, D.C.), a Whig news- 

The Presidential Election op 1852 349 

oral and written private assurances that he would accept a party plat- 
form which contained an endorsement of the Compromise of 1850. 28 
Encouraged by these assurances but far from sanguine about the 
convention prospects, the southern delegates caucused on the night 
of June 15 and issued therefrom an ultimatum demanding the con- 
vention's unequivocal endorsement of the Compromise as the price 
for continued southern participation. 29 The intense southern pressure 
subsequently secured a number of concessions from the convention, 
which convened on June 16. By a vote of 199 to 97 the delegates 
yielded to southern insistence that the convention adopt the platform 
prior to receiving nominations. A northern resolution that each state 
be represented on the platform committee by the state's Electoral 
College strength was withdrawn as a result of adamant southern 
opposition. Most importantly, the platform presented to the conven- 
tion was one which called for the cessation of antislavery agitation 
and pledged the Whig party to "acquiesce" in the fugitive slave law 
and the other Compromise measures as a final settlement. 30 When it 
became apparent that the platform would be adopted, a number of 
antislavery delegates withdrew in protest from the convention hall. 
The subsequent adoption of the platform, by a vote of 226 to 66, 
divorced the Whig party from the antislavery movement and thus 
preserved the national character of the party. 

The southern delegations, which were determined and obligated to 
support Fillmore, could only acknowledge that the South had been 
well treated on several crucial matters. Thus as the balloting began, 
the southern commitment to Fillmore was qualified by a tacit political 
debt to the northern wing. Despite the obligation, the South presented 
an almost unbroken front for Fillmore through forty-seven ballots, 
during which the President and Scott maintained a rough parity while 
a small Webster faction prevented either major candidate from ob- 
taining a majority. The Webster men, who were without instructions 

paper published during the campaign by George S. Gideon. A bound volume of the 
issue is in the Louis R. Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
A descriptive account of the convention is in Cole, Whig Party, 245-258. 

28 David Outlaw to Joseph B. G. Roulhac, April 23, 1852, Ruffin-Roulhac-Hamilton 
Papers; Cole, Whig Party, 248, 252. 

29 Cole, Whig Party, 228, 245. 

30 The word "final" was omitted in the early editions of the platform, and the omis- 
sion became something of an issue in the South. Northern Whig editors hastened 
to assure the South that the word "final" had appeared in the official platform, and 
that the omission had occurred when reporters had failed to hear the word "final" 
above the noise of the convention hall. It is probable that the word continued to be 
deleted in the North while in the South "final" quickly appeared within the text of 
the platform. One may find today both versions of the platform. See Wilmington 
Journal, June 28, 1852; Raleigh Register, June 30, 1852. 

350 The North Carolina Historical Review 

from Webster, 31 spurned southern overtures, while Scott's agents, both 
before and after the adoption of the platform, worked quietly and 
persuasively upon individual southerners to whom the General had 
given private assurances. 32 The results of these negotiations first be- 
came evident in the pro-Compromise platform and, subsequently, 
upon the forty-eighth presidential ballot, when three Missouri dele- 
gates shifted to Scott. On the fifty-third ballot the General secured 
the nomination with the vital support of eight votes from Virginia, 
three from Missouri, and three from Tennessee. The North Carolina 
delegation remained steadfast for Fillmore until the end but joined in 
making the nomination unanimous after a Virginia delegate read to 
the convention a private letter from Scott which pledged endorse- 
ment of the platform. The vice-presidential nomination subsequently 
went, on the second ballot, to William Alexander Graham of North 
Carolina, for whom the state's ten delegate votes were enthusiastically 
cast. Following the convention's adjournment Winfield Scott formally 
accepted the nomination and the platform, and thereby irrevocably 
severed his connections with the antislavery movement. 33 Secretary 
of the Navy Graham, who had preferred Fillmore but believed Scott 
sound, accepted the second place on the ticket. 34 

North Carolina Whigs had cause for distress over Fillmore's defeat, 
but they had reasons also for satisfaction and relief. Southern in- 
transigence had secured an acceptable platform and Scott's endorse- 
ment of it, and Graham's nomination was especially gratifying to the 
North Carolina party. Many Whigs, therefore, counted their blessings 
and privately acknowledged that the South had fared well consider- 
ing the circumstances. 35 Despite the northern concessions, however, 
numerous Whigs received Scott's nomination with bitter disappoint- 
ment, and some swore that they would abstain from the election or 
even vote Democratic. 36 Although Scott's unqualified acceptance of 

31 Wilmington Journal, June 25, 1852. When Webster's men wired Webster for advice 
or instructions, he replied, "I have nothing to say." 
82 Cole, Whig Party, 250, 253, 254, 255. 

33 Bancroft, Life of Seward, I, 303; Hale, William H. Seward, 210-211. Seward was 
bitterly disappointed at Scott's actions before and during the convention and in the 
General's unqualified acceptance of the platform. 

34 For Graham's opinions regarding Fillmore and Scott see the numerous correspond- 
ence to and from him in the Graham Papers, Southern Historical Collection. The let- 
ters to Graham, particularly those written after the Whig national convention, 
allude to statements which Graham had previously made. 

,^y a X en i in( L Diiiries > June 26 > 28 > 1852 ; s - s - w ebb to Joseph B. G. Roulhac, June 28, 
1852, Ruffin-Roulhac-Hamilton Papers. 

38 Numerous letters of late June and July, 1852, to William Alexander Graham 
express and /or describe Whig disappointment and defection over Scott's nomination, 
bee the Graham Papers, Southern Historical Collection and State Archives; Valen- 
tine Diaries, July 2, 1852. 

The Presidential Election op 1852 351 

the platform, together with Graham's presence on the ticket, gradually 
soothed some misgivings, 37 a segment of the Whig party of North 
Carolina remained unreconciled to the nomination of a man who had 
been associated with Seward and who had only belatedly endorsed 
the Compromise as a means to obtain the nomination. A prominent 
irreconcilable was Thomas Loring of the Wilmington Commercial, 
who, having warned prior to the convention that he would not support 
Scott, announced that despite the General's endorsement of the plat- 
form, the Commercial would oppose Scott's election because the Whig 
nominee was surrounded by antislavery elements and because southern 
rights took precedence over political affiliation. 38 After the Asheville 
News, reflecting the views of Thomas Clingman, expressed keen dis- 
appointment at Scott's nomination, 39 Thomas Loring encouraged 
western dissidents to take the lead in forming an independent Fill- 
more-Graham ticket. In the weeks immediately following the conven- 
tion, however, no such action was forthcoming, and other Whig 
editors closed ranks around Scott and emphasized his acceptance of 
the platform. The existence of disaffection and defection of undeter- 
mined proportions gnawed nevertheless at the confidence and the 
prospects of the Whig party. 

The Democratic party of North Carolina, which delighted at Scott's 
nomination, had, meanwhile, held its state convention and had parti- 
cipated in the party's national convention. Meeting at Raleigh on 
May 13, 40 the state convention expressed a willingness to "adhere" 
to the Compromise; insisted that the South's rights be observed; and 
warned that the Democratic party of North Carolina would refuse to 
support any nominee who failed to express "full, prompt, and explicit" 
approval of the fugitive slave law. Exuding confidence concerning the 
nominations and mindful of the advantages of remaining uncommitted, 
the delegates refrained from endorsing a presidential candidate. It 
was only after the convention had adjourned that some Whig leaders 
voiced regrets and misgivings that North Carolina's failure to endorse 
James Buchanan had perhaps seriously damaged his prospects at the 
national convention. 41 

Approximately thirty delegates and alternates from North Carolina 
attended the Democratic national convention, which convened in 

87 The letters referred to in the preceding footnote also stress that Graham's pres- 
ence on the ticket was beneficial and reassuring. 

38 Commercial, June 22, 24, 1852. 

39 North Carolina Standard, quoting the Asheville News. 

40 The official account of the Democratic state convention is in the North Carolina 
Standard, May 15, 1852. 

41 Wilmington Journal, May 28, 1852. 

352 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Baltimore on June l. 42 Southern delegates unanimously supported the 
adoption of the two-thirds rule, which passed by a vote of 273 to 13 
and thus required 192 votes for nomination. The entire North Caro- 
lina delegation supported a motion that the platform be adopted prior 
to the nominations, a motion which northern and southern moderates, 
who feared a divisive platform struggle, combined to defeat by a vote 
of 155 to 123. The subsequent balloting for the presidential nomina- 
tion resulted in exactly what the Democrats had feared: the inability 
of any candidate to obtain the required number of votes. For thirty- 
three ballots the North Carolina delegates generally supported Bu- 
chanan, with individual votes occasionally cast for Stephen A. Douglas 
in an unsuccessful effort to break the deadlock. On the night of June 4 
North Carolina participated in a pro-Buchanan caucus, which con- 
cluded that the Pennsylvanian could hope to win only after every 
other candidate had proved unable to obtain the nomination. 43 To 
secure Buchanan's nomination if possible, and, in any event, to break 
the deadlock in favor of an acceptable candidate, the caucus agreed 
that the delegations from North Carolina, Virginia, and Mississippi 
would test the air with the flags of other candidates. The next day 
found North Carolina supporting William L. Marcy of New York from 
the thirty-sixth through the forty-eighth ballot. As Buchanan's pros- 
pects failed to brighten, North Carolina's delegation, after consulta- 
tion with the other southern delegations, threw its entire strength to 
Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire, whom Virginia had nominated 
on the thirty-fifth ballot and who was acceptable to the South be- 
cause of his endorsement of the Compromise and his staunch 
defense of southern rights. In announcing North Carolina's switch to 
Pierce, James C. Dobbin made a dramatic appeal which stampeded 
the weary convention and secured Pierce's nomination on the forty- 
ninth ballot. 44 On the second ballot the vice-presidential nomination 
went to William Rufus King of Alabama. The platform, which was 

42 An account of the Democratic national convention is in the North Carolina 
Standard, June 5, 12, 1852. An excellent descriptive account of events in Baltimore 
(and Washington) is found in Roy Franklin Nichols, The Democratic Machine, 1850- 
185 U (New York: Longmans, Green and Company [Number 248 of Columbia Uni- 
versity Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, 605 Studies, 1897-1962]), 
131-144, hereinafter cited as Nichols, Democratic Machine. 

"Nichols, Democratic Machine, 137-138; Roy Franklin Nichols, Franklin Pierce: 
Young Hickory of the Granite Hills (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 
1931), 207, hereinafter cited as Nichols, Franklin Pierce. This is the definitive biog- 
raphy of Franklin Pierce. 

" Dobbin's speech can be found in the North Carolina Standard, June 16, 1852, and 
m J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Party Politics in North Carolina, 1835-1860 (Chapel Hill: 
University of North Carolina Press [Volume XV of James Sprunt Studies in History 
and Political Science'], 1916), 154, hereinafter cited as Hamilton, Party Politics. 

The Presidential Election op 1852 353 

already known to everyone but which was formally announced after 
the nominations had been made, declared that Congress had no 
power to interfere with slavery in the states; stated that all further 
antislavery agitation should be resisted; opposed renewal of anti- 
slavery agitation in Congress; and promised enforcement of the Com- 
promise measures, including the fugitive slave law. Thus the 1852 
Democratic convention had adopted a platform and nominated a ticket 
acceptable to the South. North Carolina Democrats took satisfaction 
from the fact that the state's delegation had acquitted itself with 
finesse and distinction. 

Neither party's southern wing, in fact, could seriously quarrel with 
the national platforms, for despite differences of wording and despite 
the inevitable campaign accusations, both the Democratic party and 
the Whig party had chosen to abide by the Compromise of 1850. The 
greatest handicap faced by southern Whigs was the nomination of a 
man who had been associated with antislavery elements and who had 
publicly endorsed the Compromise only after the nomination had 
been tendered. The largest problem confronting the Democrats was 
the nomination of an obscure, compromise candidate who was almost 
completely unknown in the South. Because its presidential nominee 
rather than its platform was each party's chief vulnerability, the cam- 
paign quickly and primarily became one of vituperative assaults upon 
the character, qualifications, and soundness of both Scott and Pierce. 
The initial Whig attack emphasized the very obscurity of Franklin 
Pierce, an obscurity which candor— if not politics— could only concede 
and which had thoroughly shocked North Carolina Democrats. 45 The 
obvious and immediate task of Democratic editors, therefore, was to 
make Pierce known to his own party and to extol his virtues and quali- 
fications. Thus the inevitable process of exaggeration began its tortured 
course. Pierce was, in fact, a party regular who had served without 
distinction in both houses of Congress and also without notoriety as 
a general in the Mexican War. Fearful of what the slavery issue could 
do to Democratic unity, he had unhesitatingly defended the rights 
of the South and, in particular, had advocated strict enforcement of 
the fugitive slave law. Pierce's obscurity and soundness challenged 
the Whigs to discover or manufacture specific charges against him. 
In addition to the continuous comments regarding Pierce's undis- 
tinguished career, three major accusations came to be leveled at him: 
first, that he had displayed cowardice during combat in Mexico; 

45 For a description of Democratic disappointment at Pierce's nomination, see Valen- 
tine Diaries, June 11, 1852. 

354 The North Carolina Historical Review 

second, that in early 1852 he alone among Democratic presidential 
candidates had failed to respond to a southern inquiry regarding the 
fugitive slave law; and third, that in New Boston, New Hampshire, in 
January, 1852, he had told an audience that he considered the fugi- 
tive slave law to be "inhumane." The cowardice accusation was a cam- 
paign distortion of an incident in which Pierce had fainted from ex- 
haustion and the pain of a knee injury. Pierce's failure to reply to the 
inquiry regarding the fugitive slave law stemmed primarily from his 
own refusal to consider himself a candidate. His New Boston statement 
was an emotional response to antislavery hecklers and did not accur- 
ately reflect his true convictions. 46 The Whig Party squeezed the three 
accusations for all the political advantage which they might contain, 
while the Democratic newspapers sought to refute the charges and 
convince the public of Pierce's merits and soundness. At the same 
time, of course, the Democrats were relentlessly castigating the Whig 
presidential nominee. 

The presidential campaign inevitably became a feature of the North 
Carolina gubernatorial election, which, as the first state election in the 
country following the national conventions, was considered both by 
persons inside and outside the state as a barometer for the national 
contest. 47 During a series of debates with Whig gubernatorial nominee 
John Kerr, David Settle Reid, the Democratic incumbent, eulogized 
Pierce, accepted the Compromise, and charged that Scott had no 
qualifications for office and had been nominated by Seward. Kerr 
endorsed the Compromise, declared Scott to be a friend of the South, 
and accused Pierce of cowardice and unsoundness. 48 If the debates 
were unnoteworthy for their originality, the newspapers ascribed great 
and direct national significance to the gubernatorial race. The Raleigh 
Register informed its readers that a vote for Kerr was a vote for Scott, 
while a vote for Reid was a vote for Pierce, "who loathes the Fugi- 
tive Slave Law!" 49 The North Carolina Standard, on the other hand, 
warned that Seward was closely watching the North Carolina election, 
that a vote for Kerr was indeed a vote for Scott, and that a vote for 
Scott in 1852 constituted a vote for Seward in 1856. 50 Reid's August 

46 Nichols, Franklin Pierce, 192, 201-202 ; for other details concerning Pierce's career 
relative to the campaign, see 29-30, 41, 47, 53-54, 57-59, 73, 90, 98, 101-105, 110-111, 
115-120, 151-159, 172, 175. 

47 Valentine Diaries, August 4, 1852 ; William Alexander Graham to John Barnett, 
July 6, 1852, copy in Graham Papers, Southern Historical Collection; North Carolina 
Standard, August 18, 1852, quoting the Richmond Enquirer. 

48 North Carolina Standard, June 26, July 3, 7, 17, 21, 24, 1852. For other accounts 
of these debates see the June and July, 1852, issues of the Raleigh Register. 

"Raleigh Register, August 4, 1852. 

60 North Carolina Standard, July 28, 1852. 

The Presidential Election of 1852 355 

victory by a vote of 48,567 to 43,003 delighted Democrats and per- 
plexed Whigs not only in North Carolina but elsewhere as well. 51 
North Carolina Democrats insisted that Pierce's popularity had con- 
tributed to Reid's victory, while the Whigs argued that state rather 
than national issues had caused Kerr's defeat. Undoubtedly the na- 
tional campaign played a subordinate role in the gubernatorial out- 
come, but despite Whig expressions of confidence and renewed 
dedication, the sharp defeat dealt the party's national aspirations yet 
another blow. The Whig mood could not have been improved by the 
Wilmington Commercials assertion that Kerr's defeat was attributable 
to Scott's nomination. 52 

The North Carolina Whigs had to contend not only with the Demo- 
crats but also with worsening conditions within their own party lead- 
ership. Whig Congressman James Caldwell clearly intended to boycott 
the campaign; 53 Representative David Outlaw's position was uncer- 
tain, but he seemed decidedly unenthusiastic about the presidential 
nominee; 54 Thomas Clingman was firmly exerting himself against his 
own Whig party; 55 the Asheville News, publicly reflecting Clingman's 
unofficial defection, announced in early July that it would support the 
Democratic rather than the Whig ticket; 56 and in August Thomas Lor- 
ing, who praised the News' decision to support Pierce but who was 
committed to the formation of an independent party, joined with a 
number of other eastern Whigs to establish a National Republican 
party. 57 Because President Fillmore had previously dissociated him- 
self from all third party movements, the National Republicans raised 
the standard of Webster and Graham. Although Graham quickly 

51 North Carolina Standard, August 18, 21, 25, 1852; Carolina Watchman, August 
26, 1852; Edward Stanly to William Alexander Graham, August 17, 1852, Graham 
Papers, Southern Historical Collection. 

52 Commercial, August 14, 1852. 

53 David Lowry Swain to William Alexander Graham, July 6, 1852, and T. M. Blount 
to William Alexander Graham, August 16, 1852, Graham Papers, Southern Historical 
Collection; Asa Biggs to David Settle Reid, August 23, 1852, David Settle Reid 
Papers, State Archives; William Alexander Graham to Samuel F. Patterson, August 
25, 1852, Lindsay Patterson Papers, Southern Historical Collection, hereinafter cited 
as Patterson Papers. 

54 T. M. Blount to William Alexander Graham, August 16, 1852, Graham Papers, 
Southern Historical Collection; William Alexander Graham to Samuel F. Patterson, 
August 25, 1852, Patterson Papers; Valentine Diaries, July 15, 1852. 

55 See the following letters to William Alexander Graham in Graham Papers, South- 
ern Historical Collection: David Lowry Swain to Graham, July 6, 1852; James W. 
Osbourne to Graham, July 23, 1852; William W. Morrison to Graham, August 3, 
1852; Edward Stanly to Graham, August 17, 1852. Clingman encouraged the Asheville 
News to abandon the Whig ticket, he encouraged his friends in the First District to 
oppose Scott, and he circulated pamphlets which described Whig dissatisfaction in 
other southern states. 

56 Commercial, July 19, 1852, quoting the Asheville News. 

57 Commercial, August 10, 1852. 

356 The North Carolina Historical Review 

asked that his name be withdrawn, 58 it continued for several weeks 
thereafter to appear on the National Republican ticket printed in 
the Commercial. The founding of the independent ticket elicited con- 
siderable criticism among party regulars, but Whig editors generally 
used moderation and sweet reason in an effort to bring vacillating and 
alienated Whigs into line. Actually, Loring's activities worried Whig 
leaders far less than did those of Clingman, for the latter's First Dis- 
trict was a traditional Whig stronghold and was, in the opinion of 
many persons, the key to the election. 59 In early October, Whig fears 
were realized when Clingman, stressing Scott's antislavery associa- 
tions, formally divorced himself from the party and announced him- 
self in favor of the Democratic ticket. 60 Whig newspapers accused 
Clingman of trying to seek a United States senatorship through the 
Democratic party. 61 Whigs contemptuously read Clingman out of the 
party which he had already abandoned because, he contended, it no 
longer sufficiently protected southern rights and interests. 

Faced with overt defection, the Whig organization worked all the 
more feverishly to rally the party behind the national ticket. Whig 
editors stressed the party's platform and Scott's acceptance of it; 
Whig political rallies, outnumbering those of the Democrats, ex- 
pressed confidence in the party's nominee; and Whig speakers took 
to the stump for Scott in generous numbers. In early August the North 
Carolina Whigs were encouraged by the arrival of William Alexander 
Graham, who had resigned as Secretary of the Navy subsequent to 
his nomination at the Whig national convention. Although Graham, in 
accordance with political custom, did not publicly campaign, he did 
correspond privately with Whig leaders, and his presence at Hills- 
borough lent prestige to his party's efforts. After Congress adjourned 
at the end of August, several other prominent Whigs returned to the 
state. Among the arrivals was Senator Willie Mangum, who, upon 
encountering lingering resentment, limited himself to modest cam- 
paigning for Scott in the Raleigh area. 62 After several weeks in New 

58 See Graham's letter dated August 24, 1852, in the Commercial, August 31, 1852, 
and also in the Raleigh Register, September 1, 1852. 

59 William Alexander Graham to Samuel F. Patterson, August 25, 1852, Patterson 
Papers; James W. Osbourne to William Alexander Graham, July 23, 1852, and 
Samuel F. Patterson to William Alexander Graham, September 2, 1852, Graham 
Papers, Southern Historical Collection; Nicholas W. Woodfin to David Lowry Swain, 
August 17, 1852, Walter Clark Papers, State Archives; W. T. Alston to Willie Person 
Maneum, September 21, 1852, Shanks, Papers of Mangum, V, 240-241. 

60 See Clingman's public letter in the North Carolina Standard, October 8, 1852. 

81 After joining the Democratic party in 1852 Clingman did serve as a United States 
senator from North Carolina. 

62 For Mangum's reception and activities in North Carolina, see the following in 
Shanks, Life of Mangum, V: W. T. Alston to Willie Person Mangum, September 21, 

The Presidential Election of 1852 357 

York, Edward Stanly campaigned effectively for Scott in North Caro- 
lina. Whig Senator Edmund Badger, whose attitude toward Scott had 
been a matter of continuous conjecture, made clear in September that 
he supported the party's nominees. 63 Although a physical malady 
limited Badger's campaigning, 64 his endorsement of the Whig ticket 
deprived the Democrats of campaign fodder and bolstered Whig 
morale. Another victory for party unity came in late September when 
Representative David Outlaw formally endorsed Scott and, shortly 
thereafter, embarked upon a series of speeches which stressed the 
General's acceptance of the Whig platform. 65 If Outlaw's commitment 
constituted a triumph for party discipline, so did the collapse of the 
National Republican movement. At a poorly attended meeting on 
October 1, Graham's name was replaced by that of Charles Jenkins of 
Georgia, a man whose presence on the ticket hardly enhanced the 
party's bleak prospects. On October 11 the organization disbanded 
itself for want of interest or support. 66 Thomas Loring attributed his 
participation in the movement to pressure from other dissatisfied 
Whigs; thereafter the Commercial abstained from the campaign. 

Political apathy had permeated not only the thin ranks of the Na- 
tional Republicans but also had thoroughly invaded the camps of 
both major parties. Whig leaders privately acknowledged that the 
masses were unenthusiastic toward Scott and the whole matter of the 
election. The Democrats encountered stubborn indifference which 
stemmed in part from overconfidence and in part from the fact that 
Franklin Pierce generated no excitement among North Carolinians. 
Democratic newspapers continued to proclaim and exaggerate his 
virtues and to defend him from attack speakers extolled his qualifica- 
tions; rallies adopted resolutions which praised his attributes. Beneath 
the sound and fury, however, lay political lethargy which was as easy 
to understand as it was to detect. The campaign had, in fact, become 
threadbare long before election day. By the end of August the issues— 

1852, 240-241; Seaton Gales to Willie Person Mangum, September 23, 1852, 242; 
Martha Person Mangum to Mary S. Mangum, September 29, 1852, 244; E. F. Lilly 
to Edward J. Hale, September 22, 1852, 241-242. See also the Hillsborough Recorder, 
September 22, 1852. 

83 See Badger's public letter dated September 21, 1852, in Raleigh Register, Septem- 
ber 25, 1852. Badger's biographer states that "in all probability" Badger's endorse- 
ment of Scott was "nothing more than campaign talk." Lawrence Foushee London, 
"The Public Career of George Edmund Badger" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1936), 190, hereinafter cited as London, 
"Career of Badger." 

84 London, who does not mention Badger's physical debility, states that Badger's 
failure to campaign actively "may indicate his lack of enthusiasm for Scott." London, 
"Career of Badger," 190. 

65 Raleigh Register, October 6, 1852. 
68 Commercial, October 14, 1852. 

358 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of lack of them— and the personalities were well known, the accusa- 
tions had all been leveled, and the rebuttals had all been made. The 
empty, repetitious rhetoric of the newspapers clearly revealed the 
shortage of meaningful campaign material, a shortage which even 
further encouraged invective and abuse. The Wilmington Commercial 
noted wryly that a foreigner would think the parties had nominated 
"the greatest scamps in the country/' 67 Making the same observation 
and undoubtedly reflecting the views of many men of both parties, 
one Whig wrote that "quiet, fraternal men" would be relieved when 
the campaign of slander had ended. 68 

The campaign did indeed come wearily to an end on November 2, 
when the Democratic ticket narrowly carried North Carolina by the 
vote of 39,744 to 39,058. 69 Taken by themselves, these figures would 
seem to indicate that the Whigs, in view of their difficulties, did well 
for Winfield Scott. A comparison of the returns with those of two pre- 
vious elections, however, establishes that the Whigs abandoned Scott 
in significant numbers and that the election's closeness resulted from 
Democratic overconfidence and from indifference toward Franklin 
Pierce. The Whig party's misgivings about its 1852 presidential nomi- 
nee are clearly revealed by the fact that North Carolina had cast 
43,715 votes for Whig presidential nominee Zachary Taylor in 1848 
and by the fact that the Whig gubernatorial candidate had received 
43,003 votes in August, 1852. Having been significantly greater in 
1848 than it was in November, 1852, Whig strength had still been 
evident as late as the summer of 1852. The returns of the 1852 presi- 
dential election clearly mark a decline in the stature of the Whig 
party of North Carolina, a decline attributable in no small part to the 
unpopularity of Winfield Scott which Graham's presence on the ticket 
could not overcome. 

Democratic overconfidence and apathy are also revealed by a com- 
parison of election statistics. Although the Democratic vote in the 
1848 presidential election had been only 35,566— more than 4,000 
votes below the 1852 presidential vote— the Democratic vote in the 

67 Commercial, September 7, 1852. 

68 Valentine Diaries, September 25, October 22, 1852. 

69 The vote has been compiled from the county returns given in the North Carolina 
Standard, November 17, 1852, and in R. D. W. Connor (comp. and ed.), A Manual 
of North Carolina . . . , 1913 (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission [State 
Department of Archives and History], 1913), 985-986, hereinafter cited as Manual, 
1913. It should be noted that while the county returns in the Manual, 1913, are correct, 
the total returns for the presidential elections of 1848 and 1852 and of the gubernatorial 
election of 1852 (997-998) are incorrectly added. Those arithmetical errors have caused 
acott to be listed in the Manual, 1913, as the winner in North Carolina in 1852. Using 
these incorrect totals, Hamilton, Party Politics, 150, has been misled to state that Scott 
carried North Carolina. 

The Presidential Election of 1852 359 

gubernatorial election of 1852 was 48,567, almost 9,000 more votes 
than the state cast for Franklin Pierce three months later. While state 
issues would influence the gubernatorial returns, 70 the sudden, drama- 
tic decrease in Democratic strength between August and November 
must be largely attributed to indifference toward Pierce and to the 
Democratic conviction that Scott would not carry North Carolina. 
The small vote for Pierce would suggest also that most anti-Scott 
Whigs preferred to boycott the campaign rather than to vote for the 
Democratic ticket. 

An examination of the 1852 presidential returns reveals also that 
the defection of Thomas Lanier Clingman was indeed a decisive politi- 
cal event. The First District cast 1,825 fewer votes for Scott than for 
Taylor, a decrease more than three times that of any other district; 
the First District's vote for Scott was 2,422 below the District's 1852 
Whig gubernatorial vote, a decline almost five times that of any other 
district. The defection of Clingman (and of other North Carolina 
Whigs) illustrates southern gravitation away from the Whig party, a 
gravitation accelerated by the nomination of Winfield Scott. 

The plight of the Whig party was indeed a national phenomenon. 
By dissociating the party from the antislavery movement, the Whig 
national convention of 1852 had preserved the party's national char- 
acter, but that achievement quickly turned to ashes. Divided seriously 
over the slavery issue, the northern wing faced a powerful, largely 
united Democratic opposition; divided over Scott's acceptability de- 
spite his endorsement of the Whig platform and ever conscious of 
the strong antislavery element among northern Whigs, southern Whigs 
were in an increasingly untenable political position. Confronted with 
these difficulties, the Whig party was able to carry only Vermont, 
Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Tennessee for Winfield Scott. As part 
of the general collapse, the Whig party of North Carolina went into a 
decline from which it did not recover. Although neither the state nor 
the national party completely disappeared for another several years, 
Winfield Scott was the last Whig presidential nominee. By 1856 the 
agitation of the slavery issue had restructured the political spectrum 
in such a way as to preclude the existence of two viable national par- 
ties. The demise of the Whig party as a national organization preceded 
by only several years the fragmentation of the Democratic party, and 
the disappearance of national parties was a prelude to civil war. 

70 The Democratic party advocated that the possession of fifty acres of land be 
eliminated as a qualification for voting for members of the state Senate. David Settle 
Reid had won the gubernatorial election of 1850 as a champion of free suffrage and 
in August, 1852, he was, as indicated in the text, reelected. 


By Stanley A. South* 

Early in September, 1748, Spanish ships sailed twelve miles into 
the Cape Fear River and attacked the little town of Brunswick, taking 
possession of all of the vessels in the harbor and plundering the town 
for three days before being driven away by townspeople under the 
leadership of William Dry. During the rout of the invaders from the 
town, the Spanish ship "Fortuna" blew up and sank in the harbor, 
killing Captain Vincent Lopez, all of his officers, and most of the 
crew. 1 

By 1751, probably as a result of that dramatic incident at Port 
Brunswick, His Majesty's Sloop "Scorpion" was stationed there under 
the command of Captain John Russell. On October 31 of that year 
William Moore of Orton Plantation sold to Captain Russell fifty-five 
acres of land adjoining the northern boundary of Brunswick Town for 
one pound per acre. 2 It was on this land that Russell began to build 
his home. Russell died in December, 1752, however, and by an instru- 
ment dated April 16, 1753, his widow acknowledged a bonded indebt- 
edness of £700 proclamation money to Richard Quince, a prominent 
Brunswick Town merchant, and appointed Quince as her attorney to 
dispose of "a certain plantation or Tract of fifty-five acres of Land 
situate near Brunswick in New Hanover County whereon a new house 
is lately erected and not as yet finished," along with the Negro slaves 
and other goods and chattels "at the highest price he . . . can get for 
same." 3 By November 18, 1754, when William Moore made his last 
will and testament, the property was once again in his possession and 

* Mr. South is archaeologist with the State Department of Archives and History. 
This paper was read at the seventh annual Conference on Historic Site Archaeology 
held at Avery Island, Louisiana, November 3, 1966. 

^South Carolina Gazette (Charleston), October 31, 1748. 

2 New Hanover County Registry Records, New Hanover County Courthouse, Wil- 
mington, Book C, 302, hereinafter cited as New Hanover Records. A microfilm copy 
of these records is on file in the State Archives, Raleigh. 

New Hanover Records, Book D, 79-80. In this instrument, which was executed 
by A^ce Russell, "widow and relict" of the late John Russell, on April 16, 1753, it is 
stated that Russell's will was published on "the thirteenth day of December last 
past, which would indicate that he had died a few days earlier. 


he directed that it be sold as soon as convenient. It was then known 
as "Russellborough," 4 though being just the shell of a house, 5 it was 
not likely to have ever been occupied by Russell. 

During those years there was no fixed seat of government in the 
colony, the records and assemblymen moving from place to place as 
each town competed to become the center of political activity. The 
executors of William Moore's estate were interested in further de- 
velopment of Brunswick Town, not only as an official port of entry, 
but as the seat of government of North Carolina. With this in mind, 
they approached Royal Governor Arthur Dobbs, who was living in 
New Bern at the time, and offered him the fifty-five acres of "Russell- 
borough" with its unfinished house for the sum of five shillings and 
one peppercorn, the latter to be delivered at the end of one year of 
residence on the property. 6 The arrangement with the peppercorn 
was apparently an attempt on the part of the executors to retain some 
degree of control over the property for one year and in doing so to 
insure that Brunswick Town would be the seat of government for at 
least that period of time and, hopefully, longer. 

Governor Dobbs was approached at an opportune time by the gen- 
tlemen from Brunswick. His health was bad, and he attributed that 
to the "aguish" climate of New Bern. He wished for a healthier cli- 
mate. Dobbs was also concerned over the high rent he was paying, so 
the offer of fifty-five acres plus the shell of a fine house at Brunswick 
looked good to him; consequently, he moved to "Russellborough" in 
1758. 7 Although New Bern and Brunswick were both coastal towns, 
equally subject to fevers and "ague," Dobbs felt that the move helped 
his health. And indeed it must have, for in 1762 when he was seventy- 

4 In his will, William Moore mentioned "my house Russellborough," and he named 
as his executors his wife, Mary Davis Moore, her father, John Davis, Sr., and George 
Moore. New Hanover Records, Book D, 134-135. In a deed to Arthur Dobbs executed 
March 1, 1762, the executors of Moore's estate also made reference to "Russell- 
borough." New Hanover Records, Book D, 326-327. 

6 In a report to the Board of Trade, August 3, 1760, Governor Dobbs said: "It is also 
notoriously evident that the unhealthy situation of the Town of Newbern deprives it 
of the least claim to such an advantage, as appears by the unanimous vote of the 
Assembly now upon their Journals, to wit, that the Town of Newbern upon account 
of its being an unhealthy situation was improper for the seat of Government. Besides 
this unanswerable objection I myself was under a necessity of leaving it, for exclu- 
sive of the want of every necessary convenience, I was apprehended to be dying upon 
account of the unhealthiness of the place and as the shell of a very good house 
situate on a healthy soil near Brunswick on Cape Fear River was offered me I re- 
moved thither where under God my health is re-established." William L. Saunders 
(ed.), The Colonial Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 10 
volumes, 1886-1890), VI, 300, hereinafter cited as Saunders, Colonial Records. 

6 New Hanover Records, Book D, 326-329. 

7 Desmond Clarke, Arthur Dobbs, Esquire < Chapel Hill: University of North Caro- 
lina Press, 1957), 152, hereinafter referred to as Clarke, Dobbs. 

362 The North Carolina Historical Review 

three years old, he married Justina Davis, a fifteen-year-old Bruns- 
wick maiden. 8 

With the move of Dobbs to "Russellborough," the building was 
completed and several outbuildings were added. This house was to 
be the residence of two royal governors for the next twelve years, 
which created a great increase in the political activity for the little 
town of Brunswick. During the years that Dobbs and his teen-age 
bride lived at Brunswick their residence was known as "Castle Dobbs," 
as was the Governor's ancestral home in Carrickfergus, Ireland. 9 

Just before embarking for England in March, 1765, Dobbs died, and 
"Castle Dobbs" devolved to his son, Edward Brice Dobbs, who sold 
it two years later to Royal Governor William Tryon for £300 ster- 
ling—a substantial increase over the five shillings and one peppercorn 
paid by Dobbs for the property. 10 

Tryon had already arranged to lease the governor's house, and with- 
in a month following Dobbs' death the new governor moved into 
"Castle Dobbs," later changing its name to "Bellfont." n During the 
first days of their occupancy the Governor and Mrs. Tryon concen- 
trated on renovating the house that was to be their home for the next 
five years. Tryon wrote to a friend, telling of his new situation and 
giving a description of his home, the only such description of a Bruns- 
wick Town house known to exist: 

As you are acquainted with M rs Tryons Neatness you will not wonder that 
we have been pestered with scouring of Chambers White Washing of 
Cielings [sic], Plaisterers Work, and Painting the House inside and out. 
Such is the Sickness and indolence of the Workmen in this Hot Climate 
that I shall not I am persuaded get rid of these nuisances this month. This 
House which has so many assistances is of an oblong Square Built of 
Wood. It measures on the out Side Faces forty five feet by thirty five feet, 
and is Divided into two Stories, exclusive of the Cellars the Parlour Floor 
is about five feet above the Surface of the Earth. Each Story has four 
Rooms and three light Closets. The Parlour below & the drawing Room 

8 Clarke, Dobbs, /1S6-1S1. 

9 Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, 
and Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by 
Stephen B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records'], 1895-1914), XXII, 

10 New Hanover Records, Book E, 309. 

n In a letter to the Earl of Halifax, October 15, 1764, Tryon said, "Among my 

lesser disappointments is the want of a house, as the Governor has declined letting me 

his villa till his departure. . . ." Colonial Records, VI, 1053. For the change of the 

name of the house to "Bellfont," see Lawrence Lee, The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial 

Days (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965), 189; also see Collet's 

A Compleat Map of North-Carolina from an actual Survey," in William P. Cum- 

EHS ™ . \S L Z oll7ia m M <><Vs (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 

I ?i V },f e 75' ~ his map ' which was made in 1770 > bears the notation "Gov r . H. 
Bellefont" outside Brunswick. 


are 20 x 15 feet each; Ceilings low. There is a Piaza Runs Round the 
House both Stories of ten feet Wide with a Ballustrade of four feet high, 
which is a great Security for my little girl. There is a good Stable and 
Coach Houses and some other Out Houses, if I continue in this House, 
which will depend on Capt. Dobbs" Resolution in the manner he disposes 
of his Effects here, I shall & must build a good Kitchen, which I can do 
for forty Pounds Sterling of 30 f x 40 f — The garden has nothing to Boast 
of except Fruit Trees. Peaches, Nectr 8 Figgs and Plumbs are in perfec- 
tion and of good Sorts. I cut a Musk Melon this week which weighed 17V2 
Pounds. . . . 12 

In November, 1765, and again in 1766 the Lower Cape Fear area 
was the scene of violence as citizens arose in arms to protest the 
Stamp Act. Tryon's home was surrounded by five hundred "inhabi- 
tants in arms," as he called them, and he was placed under virtual 
house arrest. These incidents were among the first in which armed 
resistance was used against the officers of the King by American 
colonists. 13 

In April, 1769, C. J. Sauthier drew a detailed map of Brunswick 
Town showing "His Excellency Governor Tryon's House and Planta- 
tion." This map shows the main house at "Russellborough" and re- 
veals that in 1769 there were eleven outbuildings associated with it. 
These buildings included the stable and coach houses mentioned by 
Tryon in his description and the kitchen he planned to build. The 
garden with walks and the position of individual trees are shown; to 
the south of the house a flag is flying on a flagpole. The map indicates 
that the low marsh area between the house and the river was exten- 
sively cut with canals to enable the growing of rice. Sauthier's map 
will continue to be a valuable aid in the interpretation of this site. 14 

In 1770 William Tryon moved into the controversial "Tryon's 
Palace" at New Bern, 15 and in January, 177